Ejection Injuries
Ross King
What are the typical injuries nowadays from jet
ejections? How long before you can fly again? Can this mean the end of a
fast jet career?
Cheers,
Ross
Christopher Biow
> What are the typical injuries nowadays from jet
>ejections? How long before you can fly again? Can this mean the end of a
>fast jet career?
For within-the-envelope ejections, it's usually bruises and the odd broken
finger. Pilots are placed "back in the saddle" as quickly as possible. In
the cases I can recall, 10-20 years ago, that was generally about a week
after the ejection. One of those was Splash's terribly out-of-the-envelope
ejection from which he miraculously escaped with nothing but bruised neck
and shoulders. (IIRC: TA-4, >90-degrees nose-down, ~20 knots dribbling off
the bow sans nose gear, head-first water entry with essentially no 'chute
deployment.)
Ogden Johnson III
>Drew and others,
I guess I'm one of the others, and as a non-pilot probably should keep
my mouth shut, but this question pisses me off, so I won't.
>What are the typical injuries nowadays from jet ejections?
Given that an ejection is an "in extremis" action, and given the
capabilities of most of today's ejection systems as regards speed,
altitudes, and attitudes, I'd hardly think "typical" is the word to
use for any aspect of an ejection. IME, now nearly 20 years in the
past, injuries to the pilots in my squadrons who ejected ranged from
none to fatal.
>How long before you can fly again?
I served with one pilot [the AsstOpsO while I was NCOIC Ops] who
ejected one morning at 0730, got cleared by the flight surgeon, got
new flight equipment, and made a 1650 takeoff. I served with two
others [see above] who never flew again after their ejections.
>Can this mean the end of a fast jet career?
Yes. No. Maybe.
>Cheers,
And thank you, for a Cheerful post-Christmas, Boxing Day, post.
OJ III
Ross King
little more clarity. My intrigue lies in "within the envelope" ejections.
Ie, straight and level when punching. Of course it depends on the speed and
a few other factors, but i have been told by 2 sources that punching out of
a fast jet above 200 knots will 1) definitely break your nose and all your
ribs 2) good chances of breaking sternum, and both fibula. (Sources are not
very reliable). True or false?
Ross
"Ogden Johnson III" <oj...@home.com> wrote in message
news:u8ri4tsgnadlh2ggj...@4ax.com...
William Hughes
<rosc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> OK OK I get the picture. Perhaps i should have phrased my question with a
> little more clarity. My intrigue lies in "within the envelope" ejections.
> Ie, straight and level when punching. Of course it depends on the speed and
> a few other factors, but i have been told by 2 sources that punching out of
> a fast jet above 200 knots will 1) definitely break your nose and all your
> ribs 2) good chances of breaking sternum, and both fibula. (Sources are not
> very reliable). True or false?
False. Reactions to in-the-envelope ejections vary as much as pilots do.
However, the majority of pilots who eject do fly again, sometimes very soon
after the ejection. Very few are disqualified for ejection-related injuries; a
very few more are self-disqualified (quit) or flight surgeon-disqualified for
psychological reactions. In both caes we are talking single-digit percentages or
less.
I do believe that you have been had.
frmr SrA William Hughes, USAF
Aircrew Life Support Technician
7th ACCS (TAC) 1975-1979
Dudley Henriques
"William Hughes" <cvp...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:e8lj4tsq4pmf25ibn...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Dec 2000 10:07:12 GMT, in rec.aviation.military.naval "Ross
King"
> <rosc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> False. Reactions to in-the-envelope ejections vary as much as pilots do.
> However, the majority of pilots who eject do fly again, sometimes very
soon
> after the ejection. Very few are disqualified for ejection-related
injuries; a
> very few more are self-disqualified (quit) or flight surgeon-disqualified
for
> psychological reactions. In both caes we are talking single-digit
percentages or
> less.
I tend to agree with the above. Most ejection injuries sustained within the
seat envelope are caused by improper positioning in the seat during the
ejection.
--
Dudley A. Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI/ Retired
Christopher Biow
>OK OK I get the picture. Perhaps i should have phrased my question with a
>little more clarity. My intrigue lies in "within the envelope" ejections.
>Ie, straight and level when punching. Of course it depends on the speed and
>a few other factors, but i have been told by 2 sources that punching out of
>a fast jet above 200 knots will 1) definitely break your nose and all your
>ribs 2) good chances of breaking sternum, and both fibula. (Sources are not
>very reliable). True or false?
False.
The envelope extends to airspeed. IIRC, the Martin-Baker seat in the F-14
is rated to 350K IAS (which at altitude is much more than 350K TAS), with
serious flail injuries and then death probable from there to 450 and above.
We did lose an aircrew to a very high-speed ejection, where postflight
analysis indicated that the aircraft would have pulled out successfully, if
the crew had stayed with the jet.
I believe that the Air Force ACES seat is a tad better at high-speed
ejections, and that some aircraft use devices such as canopy-shielding of
the seat to take the envelope up to the maximum speed of the jet.
John Randolph
Huh???!!! IAS is less than TAS at altitude.
"Christopher Biow" <bi...@ezmort.com> wrote in message
news:9cqj4tofbb6k5e0td...@4ax.com...
John Randolph
produce a TAS greater than 350 knots.
"John Randolph" <REMOVEjr...@home.com> wrote in message
news:vNo26.96061$I5.23...@news1.rdc1.sdca.home.com...
Christopher Biow
>"Christopher Biow" <bi...@ezmort.com> wrote:
>> is rated to 350K IAS (which at altitude is much more than 350K TAS), with
>Huh???!!! IAS is less than TAS at altitude.
Sorry, my syntax was unclear. How 'bout: "At altitude, 350K IAS is faster
than 350K TAS."
I.E., for a given airspeed, IAS will indicate less than TAS.
Ogden Johnson III
>OK OK I get the picture. Perhaps i should have phrased my question with a
>little more clarity. My intrigue lies in "within the envelope" ejections.
>Ie, straight and level when punching. Of course it depends on the speed and
>a few other factors, but i have been told by 2 sources that punching out of
>a fast jet above 200 knots will 1) definitely break your nose and all your
>ribs 2) good chances of breaking sternum, and both fibula. (Sources are not
>very reliable). True or false?
Sorry for teeing off on you, but this is the time of year when my
thoughts inevitably go back to those "absent friends" I served with
who didn't have the same chance at the decades of Christmases that I
have enjoyed.
Your parenthetical on your sources is probably right on the nose.
Several of the pilots I knew who ejected at speeds well above 200 kts
broke neither nose nor ribs, much less sternum and fibulae. All of
the fatalities I knew, either personally or within a given "community"
I was serving in, were "out of the envelope" ejections. As another
poster has mentioned, most of the injuries I knew of were generally
from the pilot not being able to get into the ideal, or even a decent,
position before having to pull the handle. That AsstOpsO I mention
*was* bruised up some, but not enough for the flight surgeon to hand
him a down chit.
OJ III
[Or Rookie talked him out of it.]
JD
contacting the nose and breaking it.news:6atk4t8chn64lt3ki...@4ax.com...
Drew Johnson
> ejected one morning at 0730, got cleared by the flight surgeon, got
> new flight equipment, and made a 1650 takeoff. I served with two
> others [see above] who never flew again after their ejections.
A pretty ‘variable’ situation. One of those questions where you preface with , “It
depends. . .” <g>
> >Can this mean the end of a fast jet career?
>
> Yes. No. Maybe.
Probably the best answer. I fly with a few guys who “read the instructions” on the
D-ring. Most were not affected at all. One guy, who stepped out in excess of 450 Kts,
had his voice box crushed (among other effects) and cannot speak above a whisper.
Dudley Henriques
"Drew Johnson" <capt...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:3A4A8CF1...@flash.net...
I have a very good friend who was involved in an ejection during an erect
flat mode spin in an F14 that exceeded - 7g's. Here speed wasn't the
determining factor. Yaw rates at egress were the fastest ever recorded for
the 14. The rear seat was near the spin axis and got put ok. The front seat
was way out front of the spin axis. The pilot was my friend, D.D. Smith. I
saw pictures of his face two days after he was picked up from the Chesapeake
Bay. He looked like he had gone fifteen rounds with Mike Tyson. I've never
seen such a mess. His face and eyes were a mass of blood. The eyes were just
slits of black bruised blood. We didn't think he was going to make it back
but he did. He told me he was -7 at least when he tried to hit the upper
curtain. He couldn't raise his arms. Finally, he managed to use the lower
handle and get out.
I've watched the film taken by Strike during the incident many times during
my visits there afterward. Every time we look at it we just sit there and
shake our heads. It was really unrecoverable and a miracle they both got
away with it at the last second.
Drew Johnson
> Every time we look at it we just sit there and
> shake our heads. It was really unrecoverable and a miracle they both got
> away with it at the last second.
Sometimes God just decides to keep you around for another round with Mike <G>
John Keeney
Ross King <rosc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kbj26.7261$45.1...@news1.belrs1.nsw.optushome.com.au...
> OK OK I get the picture. Perhaps i should have phrased my question with a
> little more clarity. My intrigue lies in "within the envelope" ejections.
> Ie, straight and level when punching. Of course it depends on the speed
and
> a few other factors, but i have been told by 2 sources that punching out
of
> a fast jet above 200 knots will 1) definitely break your nose and all your
> ribs 2) good chances of breaking sternum, and both fibula. (Sources are
not
> very reliable). True or false?
> Ross
False. Heck, 200 knots is more like approach/landing
speed for a fast jet.
Jose Manuel Alvarez
Glad your friend made it.
Jose M. Alvarez.
Dudley Henriques escribió:
Christopher Biow
>Dudley Henriques escribió:
>> "Drew Johnson" <capt...@flash.net> wrote in message
>> I have a very good friend who was involved in an ejection during an erect
>> flat mode spin in an F14 that exceeded - 7g's. Here speed wasn't the
>> determining factor. Yaw rates at egress were the fastest ever recorded for
>> the 14....
>I have a doubt... If he was subjected to -7G, how could he have trouble pulling
>his arms up? The logical thing would have been difficulties lowering the arms,
>not raising them, IMHO.
It would be 7 *eyeball-out* G, not positive or negative in the vertical
sense. I suspect that the problem getting the handle had more to do with
overall body position (kissing the instrument panel) than simple force
against the arms.
Interesting that the command-eject lever was in the forward position, so
that the pilot would even have to find his handle. We never flew with the
lever forward, even when I was a RIO in the RAG. The pilots' concern with
being able to get to the handle always outweighed their worries about a RIO
needlessly ejecting them.
Dudley Henriques
"Jose Manuel Alvarez" <cof...@retemail.es> wrote in message news:3A4B2B62...@retemail.es...
I have a doubt... If he was subjected to -7G, how could he have trouble pulling his arms up? The logical thing would have been difficulties lowering the arms, not raising them, IMHO.
Glad your friend made it.
Jose,In flight test in high performance airplanes, when we discuss erect spin, we must consider the g forces present on an extended arm from the spin axis as "eyeballs out".In an erect spin, the airplane may spin in a relatively nose down attitude with a high roll rate, or it may spin in a flat attitude with a high yaw rate and very little roll rate. In a steady state spin, the flight path is vertical; i.e. straight down. The axis of the spin, or the center of the spin rotation, is also straight down, but may be orientated almost anywhere in relation to the aircraft. Most importantly, as it was in this spin, the spin axis can develop way behind the front cockpit. When this happens, and the yaw rate is very high as it was in this case, predominate g forces on the pilot will be "eyeballs out". The force vector is of course opposite to the spin center and is considered negative in spin analysis. In this case, the yaw rate was so high, that the pilot could not raise his arms to pull the curtain. To do so would have meant moving his arms against the predominant force vector.To add to all this, the forces present in this type of erect spin can be so misleading as to cause the pilot to believe the spin is inverted. This was not the case in the loss of the 619 Tomcat at Pax. Smith was also being thrown around the cockpit with great force.This particular ejection is considered a classic example of egress against negative g.
Dudley Henriques
We never flew with the
> lever forward, even when I was a RIO in the RAG. The pilots' concern with
> being able to get to the handle always outweighed their worries about a
RIO
> needlessly ejecting them.
It is for this EXACT reason that pilots should ALWAYS buy the RIO a bottle
of the best Scotch available EVERY Christmas!!! :-)))
Dale
wrote:
Geez, I've stepped out of a C-130 at 150kts doing static-line jumps...and
skydivers routinely leave jet aircraft at speeds around 175 knots....no damage.
Skydivers have also reached speeds of 300 mph in freefall without damage. (And
please, no comments about them being damaged before entering the aircraft <g>)
> False. Heck, 200 knots is more like approach/landing
> speed for a fast jet.
--
Dale L. Falk
Cessna 182A
N5912B
There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.
http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html
Gordon
departure of an A-7E on the day we met. He had a lot of experience and knew
what to expect and still came out of it with a dislocated shoulder and other
flail injuries. He told me during the flight back to the Kirk that he felt a
lot better than his first two ejections. I will always remember his radio call
to the Midway that began our adventure. "I'm in a damn glider!" A few seconds
later, "Can't relight - when I pass 3,000', I am getting out." The rather
stunned voice from the carrier called back, "Say again..?" and the response was
the tone from a crash beacon. About an hour later, I swam up to him and one of
the first things he said was 'third times the charm', knowing that this
ejection would be his last.
v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR Aircrew
"Senso, got anything on your radar?"
"Nothing but my forehead, sir."
Gordon
>Interesting that the command-eject lever was in the forward position, so
>that the pilot would even have to find his handle. We never flew with the
>lever forward, even when I was a RIO in the RAG. The pilots' concern with
>being able to get to the handle always outweighed their worries about a RIO
>needlessly ejecting them.
>
Errrrr... during a short at-sea period, aboard Eisenhower in January-ish of
1980, one of the very first Tomcats to come aboard (CQs as we headed for the
Bahamas), had a bolter that got seriously out of hand. The back seater, we
found out later, was a very high-time Phantom RIO and had a bad ejection in his
past. The Tomcat hit the deck very hard with an audible BAM that made everyone
look toward the cause. The hook skipped and the aircraft bounced back off the
deck, where thrust took over and the aircraft thundered away. The pilot pulled
smartly back and the Tomcat started to point its nose at the sky, at which
moment the RIO decided "f__ this" and ejected, taking his completely unprepared
pilot with him. The Tomcat, unfazed, flew away. When the SAR helo brought the
two aviators back aboard, the pilot was clearly "displeased" with the RIO and
they literally had to keep people between them! No injuries that I saw, but I
would wager that the pilot seriously wanted to change that. Someone eventually
had to go and shoot down the Tomcat (of course that part of the story should
begin, "now, this is no shit..").
v/r
Gordon
Pony
side and roll a couple miles and all he recieved was a sprained
ankle............of course, he was on the ground.
Plenty of people have bailed out of fast moving airplanes but ejection seems
to be a different matter.
Now If I can just get dad to stop kicking me to the right seat whenever he
is over and I am viewing newsgroups then I won't have as much fun trying to
undo whatever challenge he has issued to whom he believes is full of it.
Of course, that would be like asking him not to jump on car hoods at spad
reunions.
Gordon wrote in message <20001228185457...@ng-ft1.aol.com>...
Gary Watson
F16 driver ate a big pelican at 1,500ft in the 500 Kts speed range. From
what I heard in the mess that night he had just gone sub sonic in a
descending turn away from one of the SAM sites when everything went to hell
in a handbasket. According to his wingman who never saw him eject, by the
time he got turned around he could see the parachute and pilot landing on
the tundra. I am not positive on the speed numbers but it was high and he
was low level so the air was pretty thick. He sustained a broken collar
bone, two punctured eardrums and the usual assortment of bumps and bruises.
Perhaps if there is anyone from Hill on the NG they could fill in rest of
the blanks.
I also saw Anatoly Kovochur eject from the Mig 29 at Paris and I interviewed
him three days later. All he had was a black eye from face-planting into the
grass between the runways.
However one of the pilots on CF5s when I was with 434 sqn sustained near
fatal head injuries after ejecting from a flamed out CF5 in a flat spin -
the seat hit him in the head. He managed to walk again after years of
therapy with help, but his career was over.
Other guys I know who jumped out of 104s walked away with nothing, not even
a sore back.
Just depends on the circumstances and your luck-of-the-day.
Gary Watson
"Pony" <ping...@cojoneville.com> wrote in message
news:t4nm6mk...@corp.supernews.com...
Frank Minich
>
<snip>
>
2) good chances of breaking sternum, and both fibula. (Sources are not
> very reliable). True or false?
> Ross
I grant this doesn't address your question, but the seat in the RA-5C
(not an MB seat, I think North American built it, not sure) raised one's
knees and forcibly retracted one's legs into recesses in the seat and
held them there during ejection.
The seat in the F4 had straps to perform a similar function (but I don't
know much about them, only had one F4 ride).
I don't think the A4 seat had anything comparable, so I suspect that
your statistics would show different kinds of injuries associated with
the different seat types.
By the way, the Vigi seat originally had arm straps which would force
one's wrists to one's chest (i.e, crossing your arms for you) and hold
them immobile during the ejection sequence. By the time I entered the
community (1974) nobody used them anymore - I think noone wanted to
chance being pinned "at the ramp". Probably an irrational fear, though,
because I can't remember anyone being ejected due to a seat whim, for
example.
Frank Minich
John Randolph
>know much about them, only had one F4 ride).
The crewmember buckled a nylon strap around each leg just above the ankle
and then ran a nylon lanyard that was connected to the seat and the cockpit
deck through fittings on the strap. During ejection the lanyard would snug
down, pulling the legs in against the seat as it went up rail. There was a
emergency guillotine handle which could be pulled to sever the leg retraints
and the chute from the torso harness in case of an emergency egress.
"Frank Minich" <fmi...@ti.com> wrote in message
news:3A5226...@ti.com...
Gary
"John Randolph" <REMOVEjr...@home.com> wrote
> The crewmember buckled a nylon strap around each leg just above the ankle
> and then ran a nylon lanyard that was connected to the seat and the
cockpit
> deck through fittings on the strap. During ejection the lanyard would
snug
> down, pulling the legs in against the seat as it went up rail. There was
a
> emergency guillotine handle which could be pulled to sever the leg
retraints
> and the chute from the torso harness in case of an emergency egress.
Interesting. I always just assumed that Phantom crews wore "spurs" just like
on our Zips. (Guess I assumed wrong... heh heh)
Cheers!
Gary
Walter Bjorneby
seat' that is a classic example of what happens
when non-flying types make the decisions. The 6
was a M 2+ airplane so 'naturally' the seat had
to cope with M 2+ ejections. It was a marvel of
complexity rather resembling the B58 seat. After
the pilot initiated ejection the thing yanked
his feet back )cables and spurs), then
encapsulated the pilot via two 'clamshells'
coming up from beneath and over the top. The
seat shot up the rails, rotated back so the
pilot was now butt-first, twin stabilizing booms
shot out and the seat was kicked free of the 6
and after deceleration a drogue chute pulled the
pilot out of the seat for a barometric personnel
chute deployment.
Our protagonist was tooling around in his 6 when
the oil system failed, too far from any airport
to think of an emergency landing. He set up for
ejection, pulled the d-ring, and the canopy left
and his feet were yanked back. The sequence
stoped right there. He managed to belly the
thing into a nice soft field of potatoes without
catching fire nor breaking his back. He tried to
climb out of the beast and fell head first over
the canopy rail as his feet were still secured
to the cables, breaking an ankle in the process.
He was stuck there, as he could not get back up
to use the cable-cutter nor coul he kick free of
the cables or his boots. Fortunately the farmer
came running up and managed to free him without
further damage.
FYI I was at Tyndall when a QC inspection
revealed that of about 28 B seats only some 12
would have worked as advertised. Lousy
maintenance and puzzling tech data were blamed.
Not long after that the M2+ B seats were all
replaced by a standard ejection seat as the
powers-that-be realized most ejections occured
at normal speeds and what was really needed was
a zero-zero seat.
So much for 'boffins'.
Walt BJ ftr plt ret
Christopher Biow
see <http://www.gallagher.com/ejection_seat/>. I'd thought things like that
didn't happen any more.
Mary Shafer
Having ridden in both, I have to say the F-4 seat seemed more
convenient than the F-104 seat. The F-4E had the chute built into the
seat, so there was no strapping on a parachute. Also, the lower-leg
restraints, or garters, went on quite easily (I thought there were two
per leg, one just below the knee and one just above the ankle)
compared to the blind feeling around with one's foot, trying to engage
the spur in the fitting on the leg cable. In addition, it wasn't
necessary in the F-4 to learn the little lift and twist that released
the spur from the cable in the F-104. I never did master that trick.
When I came back from my F-104 ride, I was so exhausted that I ended
up taking off the spurs because I didn't have the energy to fight with
them until they released. I also shucked off the chute so I could get
over the sill and down the ladder without overbalancing. I ended up
leaning over the sill and retrieving the spurs, but the Life Support
guy told me to skip getting the chute (probably because he was afraid
I'd fall off the ladder and we'd both have to fill out that four-page
form required for OTJ injuries).
We had some visiting military pilots here one day that had their boots
modified to attach directly to the retraction cable. They had a
fitting sewn onto the top of the back centerline of the boot. I
noticed it as we walked out of the crew brief and asked one of our
pilots about it. I think they were USN F-14 pilots or USAF F-4
pilots, but it's been many years and I don't remember
--
Mary Shafer Senior Handling Qualities Research Engineer
sha...@orville.dfrc.nasa.gov
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
Of course I don't speak for NASA
Gary Watson
but after a couple ejections where the cable cutters didn't work and a few
sustained ankle injuries from losing their boots fairly violently, many went
back to wearing the strap-on spurs. I just recall that they were very
slippery when walking across a smooth hangar floor - plus the special little
dance in the cockpit to attach them to the seat.
Gary Watson
Mary Shafer
> > We had some visiting military pilots here one day that had their boots
> > modified to attach directly to the retraction cable. They had a
> > fitting sewn onto the top of the back centerline of the boot. I
> > noticed it as we walked out of the crew brief and asked one of our
> > pilots about it. I think they were USN F-14 pilots or USAF F-4
> > pilots, but it's been many years and I don't remember
> Our CF104 pilots had the spurs riveted to their boots back in the
> mid-60s but after a couple ejections where the cable cutters didn't
> work and a few sustained ankle injuries from losing their boots
> fairly violently, many went back to wearing the strap-on spurs. I
> just recall that they were very slippery when walking across a
> smooth hangar floor - plus the special little dance in the cockpit
> to attach them to the seat.
I agree with you about the thrill of the spurs on a slick floor; when
I stood up in the locker room after putting them on, I sat down right
away as my feet slid out from under me. I ended up kind of tiptoe-ing
until I got off the vinyl and onto the concrete. I did manage to get
one attached in the cockpit myself, but the Life Support Tech had to
help me with the other one, as I just couldn't find the attach point
on that side.
The guys I saw with the attachment on the boots didn't fly F-104s but
something with the wrap-around strap that attached to the lanyard.
Their attachment was up at the top, well above the ankle, not down on
the heel like you'd need for the F-104. I'm almost certain the guest
pilots were USN pilots, but I can't remember which community (I worked
on both the F-8 DFBW, which could have involved F-4 pilots, and the
F-14 ARI, which involved F-14 pilots, but I don't know enough about
F-14 seats to even guess the likelihood of them being one or the other
or both).
Back when we flew F-104s, Life Support would give retiring pilots a
set of spurs, chrome-plated and mounted on a board with a plaque, as
part of their retirement party.
George Leaf
sign of an F-8 (Vaught) Crusaider Pilot. Perhaps there were other aircraft
where the ejection seat pulled the pilots feet in from the pedals to save
their legs.
George
"Mary Shafer" <sha...@orville.dfrc.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:u0wvc3a...@orville.dfrc.nasa.gov...