WTF!!! (French Airforce FUBAR) - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Ian.M
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2020, 01:46:33 am
content: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/04/09/frenchman_ejected_fighter_jet_retirement_jolly/I don't normally post click-bait links, but this one is unbelievable!

author: lowimpedance
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2020, 01:59:49 am
content: , I wanna see the Go Pro footage.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2020, 05:31:07 am
content: QuoteAnother fail from the ground crew

author: andy3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2020, 05:47:46 am
content: At least he got the full experience including ejecting!

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2020, 07:25:36 am
content: Quote from: andy3055 on April 10, 2020, 05:47:46 amProbably not the experience you want to have. I talked to a pilot who had to eject from his MIG-29, due to an engine fire. He became 3 cm sorter, his spine was affected. Spinal hernia, and he can never fly again in a jet.The guy clearly had a bad experience, and wasn't prepared properly. The pilot didn't ease him into the flying, but practically tortured him with the high G forces. The lack of professionalism is just baffling for anyone involved in this incident.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2020, 01:01:12 pm
content: Quote from: andy3055 on April 10, 2020, 05:47:46 amExactly!

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2020, 02:53:11 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on April 10, 2020, 07:25:36 amI believe modern ejection seats are much more safe, through there is always riskshere's a very interesting story of a pilot that had to eject because of a broken landing gear,https://youtu.be/Hz4vKMsUvpE(turn on CCs if you don't speak Danish)

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2020, 03:39:08 pm
content: Quote from: Ian.M on April 10, 2020, 01:46:33 amStunning lack of professionalism the whole thing! Bunch of ass clowns.

author: jogri
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2020, 06:24:14 pm
content: I think one of the worst moments for the pilot was getting out of his seat after he landed: If the ejector seat goes off while you're strapped in you are relatively safe, but it could be rather nasty if it goes off while you are removing your seat straps.

author: rrinker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2020, 07:44:04 pm
content: Rather nasty is putting it mildly - especially if you are half out of the cockpit when it goes off.That was a whole lot of just wrong, starting with the work colleagues who badgered him to do it when it seems fairly obvious he didn't want to. And not having the g-suit on properly, and not strapped in properly - even if he didn't pull the eject handle, flying a high performance profile he could have been seriously injured had the flight been completed normally.I'm torn over what I would do - I'm not a fan of roller coasters and I don't think I would handle the high G very well, but on the other hand, I would love to fly in something like that - I've flown in small planes and really loved it. But a Cessna 172's not going to pull 5 G's. Not and stay flying. We have a big air show here every year, well, combined air and ground WWII thing, re-enactors in with trucks, tanks, and Jeeps, plus flying examples of all sorts of aircraft. Still want to ride the B17 or B29, but the local museum that sponsors this also has a trainer biplane they give rides in - half of me wants to do it, and half of me thinks I would be scared to death. Word has it that the usual pilot will give you as much as you can take, within the limits of the aircraft. So if I don;t want to do any loops, he won't, but some people ask for the full experience, and they will oblige.

author: shakalnokturn
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2020, 11:44:39 pm
content: Quote from: jogri on April 10, 2020, 06:24:14 pmIt's a shame it didn't go off at that point, it would have been a bit of a lesson for him after inflicting that flight on his passenger.Those idiots (different air base) are flying over me daily, if I catch an ejected one in my garden he'll be getting my best sympathy for his kind.I must think of getting a heavy dog just in case...

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2020, 12:28:48 am
content: Quote from: shakalnokturn on April 10, 2020, 11:44:39 pmyeh, fuck them for doing their job ....

author: shakalnokturn
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2020, 12:38:16 pm
content: I'm sure they enjoy their job, just I don't enjoy them doing their job.Now having a couple of hints on how seriously the elite are doing their job over our heads, yes F... them!

author: joeqsmith
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2020, 05:14:02 pm
content: Quote from: shakalnokturn on April 11, 2020, 12:38:16 pmThanks for the post. I enjoyed the story.I liked this video on Taffy HoldenI had a brother in USN during this time. Learn or Burn, USS Forrestal

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2020, 05:49:38 pm
content: Yeah, anyway. Hats off to the pilot. Managing to land safely in that context is amazing.I've read the BEA report.A number of things to consider, but I'll sum up the main root cause: the passenger had a medical examination a few hours before the flight, and it followed he got a medical restriction to +3G. Unfortunately, it appeared that this restriction was NOT communicated to the pilot. Whereas he had planned on having a "cooler" flight than usual, just because there was a civilian passenger, he wasn't aware of the +3G restriction, so during the initial climb - which he didn't adapt, because he had no reason to - they were subjected to ~+4G. The report states that the hypothesis of the passenger passing out was rejected, but he got under so much stress that he freaked out and pulled on the wrong thing just as some kind of reflex.Miscommunication is often the #1 cause of accidents.But the outcome of this, I still find amazing. They got out of it with very light injuries.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2020, 06:43:09 pm
content: Quote from: joeqsmith on April 11, 2020, 05:14:02 pmAnother accidental take-offhttps://youtu.be/TGjPu6DPzWU?t=97I'm guessing the "co-pilot" that froze wasn't really a pilot but some spectator along for the ride

author: bw2341
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2020, 10:18:47 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on April 11, 2020, 05:49:38 pmWhile, my French isn't good enough to understand the full report, there is additional detail in section 2.3.1.1. Mission on page 29.The accident flight wasn't a dedicated demonstration flight, but a regular operational training mission with three jets in air combat manoeuvres. The doctor telephoned the pilot, telling them to not make the flight too intense for the passenger. The pilot decided to cut the flight short and fly only the first phase, leaving a simple flight out and then returning to the airport.The takeoff phase was unchanged. Since the accident aircraft was the third one in the formation, it followed the other two in a standard takeoff in order to rendezvous with them later. During takeoff, the pilots do not pay attention to the g-loading, so they may routinely exceed +4g.

author: bw2341
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2020, 10:51:28 pm
content: https://www.defense.gouv.fr/content/download/580401/9905742/A-2019-03-I.pdfHere's the link to the report.The failure of the front ejection seat is interesting. The sequence selector has two pyrotechnic control lines to the front seat, one for the main ejection motor and one for the harness tensioner. The tensioner charge functioned correctly. The main ejection motor did not fire.The pyrotechnic control lines are probably shock tube detonators, which are thin tubes filled with explosives. The burning explosives transmit a signal from one place to another, directly triggering the ejection motor.In this case, the control line from the sequence selector to the front seat ejection motor was not tightly screwed into the body of the sequence selector.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2020, 11:13:00 pm
content: Quote from: bw2341 on April 11, 2020, 10:51:28 pmapart from all the other screwups I'd consider an ejection seat failure quite a serious faultI don't know if all fighter jets fire both seat automatically, I seem to remember stories of other people getting a ride in a two-eater jet being told by the pilot that if told to eject they shouldn't hesitate because he would not wait long even through the rear seat is supposed to leave first

author: bw2341
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2020, 12:07:30 am
content: The Rafale has a selector switch for SOLO (independently controlled ejection) or TWO (both seats will eject if either handle is pulled). On the accident flight, the switch was set to TWO so both seats should have ejected.Another technical fault during the flight was that the life raft in the pilot survival kit failed to inflate due to a blockage on the trigger cord.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2020, 12:25:37 am
content: Quote from: bw2341 on April 11, 2020, 10:18:47 pmProblem with the doctor's communication is again that he failed to mention the 3g restriction. Had it been clearly communicated, I think the pilot would have had a clue as to how to handle the initial climb." non communication au commandant de bord et au passager de la restriction médicale à 3 g suite à uneaptitude médicale délivrée avec restrictions moins de 4 heures avant le vol ; "So the doctor's recommendations were clearly too vague for some unknown reason. This restriction alone should have been enough to decide to switch to just a basic demo flight.Now of course nothing tells us for sure that the poor guy would not have freaked out anyway. He underwent a medical exam, but was probably not subjected to any significant psychological testing prior to the flight. Note again that the passenger didn't actually pass out, so that was more intense stress.And then yes, there were a couple technical faults after the incident, but they are not causes. But as I said, it's amazing how the pilot managed to land safely in spite of them.The recommendations from the BEA after the flight were:"(...) respecter le délai de 10 jours préconisé par la DCSSA entre la visite médicale et le vol" - which means there should have been 10 days between the medical exam and the flight, whereas here there were only a few hours, probably explaining why some of the info was not well communicated."(...)prévoir un vol adapté ou dédié pour l’embarquement d’un passager occasionnel sur avionéquipé de siège éjectable en cas de restrictions médicales." - which means for any occasional passenger with medical restrictions, the flight should be adapted for planes with ejectable seats.I'm sure again the pilot was meaning to "adapt" the flight somewhat, but was not informed well enough to make the right decisions.

author: bw2341
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2020, 01:04:05 am
content: In 2.3.6.1. Transmission de l’information:"Compte tenu des contraintes temporelles, le passager a quitté le CMA avant que le médecin ait pu contacter le CEMPN. Lepassager quitte donc le centre médical avant que le médecin ait pu conclure son expertise."So because of the rush, the passenger left the medical facility before the doctor was able to contact an aviation medical specialist."Pour des raisons informatiques, le certificat n’est pas rédigé immédiatement et l’information est transmise par téléphone au pilote sans que la notion de limitation à +3 g ne soit explicitement signalée."Because of an IT problem, the report was not written right away. Instead, a phone call was made without mentioning the +3g limit.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2020, 01:40:13 am
content: Yes, the communication problem and what unfolded was mainly due to the whole thing being done in a rush. Thus the recommendation of respecting a delay of 10 days, which actually preexisted.The reason for the rush itself in unclear - maybe the whole event as a "gift" was really planned at the last "minute". Or maybe the passenger could not get an appointment with the doctor soon enough.Either way, the unreasonable part here was that the flight crew accepted to take the passenger without actually having the medical certificate - just a phone call. That alone should probably be considered a fault.Of course as I said, the incident could still have happened - who knows, the guy may have freaked out just the same even at just +2g inside a fighter jet... but we'll never know. It's clear that rushing is never a good idea.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2020, 01:59:41 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on April 12, 2020, 12:25:37 amas far as I know many rollercoaster are 4g, I think the -0.6g feels much worse

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2020, 06:07:39 am
content: On the upside, imagine what would happen if both ejection seats fired and they lost the aircraft in such idiotic circumstances

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2020, 06:34:48 am
content: Quote from: shakalnokturn on April 11, 2020, 12:38:16 pmI think you might feel differently if your country didn't have a well trained and practiced military and some other nation decided to invade. I mean it's not like that's ever happened before...

author: Gixy
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2020, 07:07:03 am
content: Hi,Positive g's were not the really the problem. There was a lot of carelessness at the time of the installation on board: harness not tighten, helmet not locked and visor not lowered during take-off, and not even a briefing to explain the guy the emergency procedures. After pulling approx 4g, the pilot recovered horizontal flight by pushing slight negative g: then the passenger, not well attached on his seat, got scared when he got out of his seat and pull the first thing he found, unfortunatelly the ejection seat handle...

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2020, 07:45:33 am
content: Quote from: langwadt on April 12, 2020, 01:59:41 amRC has much shorter high G seactions than a jet. And negative G is definetly worse. I had red eye/tunnel vision while pulling negative G in a Antonov An-2, cant imagine how much worse it could be in a jet.I have the feeling, that all this is happening due to the younger generation taking over maintenance and pilot positions. Yes, they are my generation. Recklessly fooling around with military equipment. They never had to face war or any serious situation, cold war is over, attention is gone. I mean, look at this other incident:https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a23793250/belgium-f-16-accidentally-destroys-another-f-16/Quote** 2018

author: SkyMaster
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2020, 02:22:03 pm
content: So, what kind of sanction did the pilot receive?

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2020, 03:05:00 pm
content: Quote from: magic on April 12, 2020, 06:07:39 amYeah, the technical fault with the ejection system actually saved the plane here.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2020, 03:13:20 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on April 12, 2020, 06:34:48 amYeah. It's probably annoying if you live close to an exercise zone, but unfortunately it's your problem. That's not a reason to wish we had no fighter jet pilots.Likewise if you are unfortunate enough to live close to an airport, that can be almost unbearable, but would you wish air transport were banned altogether?

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 12, 2020, 04:42:33 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on April 12, 2020, 03:13:20 pmI quite like it myself. I live directly under one of the approach paths to SeaTac international airport and I enjoy watching the planes fly over me at just a few thousand feet, I often leave a scanner on and listen to the approach and departure frequencies. I'm near Boeing as well and they fly new aircraft overhead on test flights as well as every now and then a Dreamlifter or AN-124 freighter flies directly over at about 2,000ft, the latter in particular is an impressive site. I actually would love to live a bit closer to an airport so I could have a better view. I go to airshows any time I hear of one too, airplanes are amazing machines.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 13, 2020, 12:52:34 am
content: I'm guessing a strongly worded directive was sent around shortly after that.

author: wasyoungonce
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2020, 08:15:42 am
content: Something in this whole story is wrong. Most fighter Acft have a mode selection switch or "mode selector"...which would be selected normal....if rear initiated ejection the front would stay....I'd say the Rafale would have thishttps://psemc.com/products/explosive-sequence-control/This suggests it does....http://www.safran-martin-baker.com/smbf_web/UK/ejection-seat-MKF16F.awpWhy does this matter....it has 3 settings, normal, solo, rear. "Rear" ... commands ejection (instructor initiated), "Solo"...when flying solo front seat ejects only, "Normal"...any rear initiated will not eject the front unless the front also ejects...! Its possible the rear seater changed this selection?

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2020, 09:39:00 am
content: I live below a flight path.....FlypastbySeanB_ZA, on Flickr

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2020, 03:13:30 pm
content: Quote from: wasyoungonce on April 13, 2020, 08:15:42 amAs explained in the report, the selector for the Rafale-B has two positions: SOLO and TWO.In the TWO mode, if one seat's ejection is triggered, the other seat's ejection will occur in sequence,In the SOLO mode, each seat triggers ejection individually.The selector WAS definitely on the TWO mode in this event, so the pilot's seat should have been ejected after the passenger's seat. It didn't due to a fault that led to the command not being transmitted properly to the pilot's seat. (The fault was due to some part in the selector breaking after the explosion apparently due to a screw not being tightened properly.)The question whether the selector should have been on SOLO or TWO for this particular flight doesn't seem really relevant IMO. TWO is probably the normal procedure for a flight with a passenger.There isn't any way of DISABLING the ejection trigger on a given seat AFAIK, so that could not have been done - which would have prevented the incident here.In retrospect, it could seem a good idea for flights with passengers who are not well trained, but I'm sure there would be contradicting arguments. Besides, allowing selectively disabling that would probably lead to many more potential accidents.As I said earlier, note that this fault, by complete luck (if we can call it that), actually saved the plane - a mere ~70M euros. Had the sequence worked properly, the plane would have been lost. How ironic.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2020, 04:38:14 pm
content: In retrospect it does seem like there should be a way to lock out the ejection seat, at least if the aircraft is ever going to be carrying a less than fully trained passenger. As this incident shows, the system can do more harm than good in certain situations, this could have ended with the unoccupied plane crashing into an apartment building or residential neighborhood. It also seems there should be a way for the pilot to abort their own ejection should the rear seat eject. I'm shocked that there is both no way to lock it out, and that they did not hammer it into this guy's head to never, ever touch the ejection handle unless it's an actual emergency. This was just full of huge mistakes all around.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2020, 05:14:25 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on April 13, 2020, 04:38:14 pmAs I said, after thinking about it a little, I'm not sure it would be a good idea. Those planes are not designed specifically to carry untrained passengers. Specific functions for that case are not a good idea IMO. I think it could do more harm than good in the end.One thing to keep in mind - during normal flights (not demos) with two pilots inside, either of them could be piloting at some point. It's especially the case during the training of pilots. So disabling ejection for any of the seats is likely NOT a good idea in general, and should thus not be possible IMHO unless we want to introduce a whole range of new possible problems.Quote from: james_s on April 13, 2020, 04:38:14 pmI think it fully makes sense from a safety POV if you think about it. What doesn't is carrying untrained and unsufficiently prepared passengers. As the report says, not only the guy had never been in a fighter jet before, he had never been in any kind of plane other than airliners. So the probability of freaking out was high IMO. I've been in small planes in the past, and took some flying lessons. Even if you love it and are not easily impressed, the very first time is usually a bit frightening, especially the landing phase! I'm not even talking about a fighter jet!Quote from: james_s on April 13, 2020, 04:38:14 pmAs was shown in this case, the event was certainly planned and prepared in a rush (apparently for the sake of it being a full "surprise" for the passenger). This is the basis of all following mistakes: rushed medical exam, incomplete communication of the results to the pilot, rushed breefing for the passenger...Making this kind of event a "surprise gift" is the worst idea ever IMO.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2020, 05:43:52 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on April 13, 2020, 04:38:14 pmHe wasn't strapped properly in his seat, flapped around in the breeze and grabbed some random thing to hold

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2020, 12:18:30 am
content: Quote from: magic on April 13, 2020, 05:43:52 pmThe straps weren't tightened enough, but he did not "flap around in the breeze" either.No doubt it must have added to the stress though.To understand why that happened, read section 2.3.7.

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2020, 07:56:03 pm
content: That's a big oops! lol. I guess it's definitely a story you can tell people that not lot of people will be able to say they did. "You accidentally what?!"What happens when the pilot ejects too, are those planes designed to try to gracefully land/crash or does it just keep going in whatever direction it was going with zero control? In most cases you'd pull that if the plane is already crashing though.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2020, 08:17:27 pm
content: Quote from: Red Squirrel on April 14, 2020, 07:56:03 pmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornfield_Bomber

author: m98
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2020, 09:49:40 pm
content: This incident shows some serious procedural flaws. How could a passenger not wear his safety gear properly, not be strapped in properly, not be briefed on what to never touch in the cockpit and where he can safely hold on during the flight? What where they thinking? What was the pilot thinking? If they really lack all common sense on how to prepare an untrained passenger, they shouldn't be allowed to fly them.

author: sam[PS]
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2020, 03:16:11 am
content: I think the real problem is what this tourist was doing in a Jet.Some people think because they have a high hierarchical position all is due to them. For me what this show is no sorry but no. He had nothing to do there. Jet aircraft are tools ment for highly trained professionals, and all the military procedure are made in this optics also. I can totally imagine why those highly skilled personnels where bored by this situation and kinda did it more loosely as they probably should. Because they should not be asked to amuse a stupid tourist just because he has money or hierarchical power. Of course the report won't mention that because it is primarily targeted at those kind of high hierarchical place dumbass. But to me the real fault is there. A similar situation but with a much more dramatic issue happened in US navy about ten years ago where a Nimitz class submarine hit a Japanese fishing boat destroying it and putting all it's crew in life jeopardy. The inquiry revealed that at the time of the collision the bar was held by an amiral's teenager son. Tourist here again !Some should be taught that money can't buy competence and there is a reason if military personnels follow years of training to do this kinds of things.Just my 2cts...

author: paulca
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2020, 02:26:52 pm
content: Quote from: jogri on April 10, 2020, 06:24:14 pmWhich is why a checklist item is the arm/disarm switch. Usually the first thing to be disarmed on opening the canopy and the last thing to arm on closing it... assuming the arm/disarm works.The ground crew who greets you also have the safety pins, one for the seats included.

author: paulca
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2020, 02:30:15 pm
content: One odd thing as well. In the event of ejection there are several sensitive systems with destruct mechanisms in them. Like the IFF gear and "Music" boxes (ECM and ECCM software). These cannot fall into enemy hands and usually have mechanisms to destroy them. Presumably these didn't go off either.

author: jogri
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2020, 04:18:26 pm
content: The safety pins are just a mechanical stop to prevent you from pulling the ejection handle and the drogue chute from launching, they are just there to make sure nothing hits a primer (and some explosives detonate somewhere on the seat).I don't see how those can cut off a pyrotechnic line without inducing a major risk of a malfunction: You can stop a shock line by decreasing its diameter or inserting some sort of blockage, but tinkering with the system responsible for getting the pilot out of a failing aircraft on a daily basis (each start/landing) seems like a really bad idea.And i don't think that they use electronic locks for ejection seats as anything electronic can be jammed->you really don't want someone jamming your ejection seat.They probably use something like C4 for the pyrotechnic lines so the chances of it going off on its own after the line has been severed are basically nonexistent but i wouldn't trust it if i was sitting on a armed ejection seat.The radio equipment is probably scheduled to self-destruct after the pilot flying left the airplane as it is safer (the selfdestruct might damage other equipment or the plane) and because the pilot absolutely needs the IFF if his ejection seat malfunctions and he is stuck in his plane.

author: jmelson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2020, 05:44:53 pm
content: Quote from: jogri on April 15, 2020, 04:18:26 pmThe old systems were entirely mechanical/explosive/pneumatic, with no electrical components. Some newer systems may have limited electrical functions for sequencing and time delays, powered by a lithium battery totally separate from the aircraft electrical system. And, generally, there are safety pins that lock out the ejection handles so people don't fire the system with their shoes or elbows while getting in/out. These handles are in pretty exposed areas so that they can be pulled in high-G events. There are very limited overrides and lockouts other than the handle safety pins to minimize things that could disable the system when it is needed. There were some aircraft where a loss of the canopy could eject the crew, as the loss of the canopy at high speed could disable the pilot or indicate an accident that caused the pilot to be disabled.Jon

author: paulca
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2020, 05:47:55 pm
content: I only know sim aircraft, but the F18, A10, Harrier and F14 ALL have a "Seat Arm" lever, either where the armrest would be or on the side of the seat. In rafale cockpit photos you can see a flat yellow and black chevron's lever beside the pilots thigh. I think that's the same thing.

author: jmelson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2020, 05:54:54 pm
content: Quote from: jogri on April 15, 2020, 04:18:26 pmThe pyrotechnic lines use hexanitrostilbene, I think. It is very heat resistant, and needs a strong initiator to start the shock wave.Jon

author: jogri
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2020, 09:41:34 pm
content: Quote from: paulca on April 15, 2020, 05:47:55 pmThat's not the handle of the ejection seat, that handle is there in case the ejection seat doesn't separate from the pilot after he ejected himself (it should be marked "manual release"). I don't think that it will initiate the ejection sequence if you pull on it.

author: wasyoungonce
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 15, 2020, 11:37:36 pm
content: Quote from: jogri on April 15, 2020, 04:18:26 pmSMDC...Shielded Mild Detonating Cord.......https://psemc.com/products/shielded-mild-detonating-cord/.Used for the Canopy initiator. The seats have more than one charge. I don't know what they use but they look like large blanks. Usually 2 in each seat. 2 are for ejection then solid rocket motor initiates .... I think....sometimes a small SMDC for automatic sear of the harness release.

author: paulca
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2020, 06:48:53 am
content: Quote from: jogri on April 15, 2020, 09:41:34 pmNo it arms the ejection seat. Or disarms it, so the handle will not fire the seat. I expect it is more of a safety interlock thing, with that handle raised the seat will not and cannot fire.http://www.ejectorseats.co.uk/martin%20baker%20sju5a.htmlThis describes it as the "Safe/Arm handle"We were talking about accidental firing of the seat. Consider getting into a powered on plane in a hangar. One does NOT want the seat armed. The seat is armed in the taxi checklist or after leaving the hangar and closing the canopy. Before the canopy is closed the pilot can get out of the aircraft in case of fire and be safer than a 0 foot ejection.

author: Gixy
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2020, 07:15:43 am
content: Yes, and those levers are secured by "remove before flight" pins which must be shown by the mecanics to the pilot(s) once on board.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2020, 07:25:47 am
content: Quote from: paulca on April 16, 2020, 06:48:53 amLooks like the Rafale uses a newer seat,http://martin-baker.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/mk16_rafale.pdfbut I'm sure it also has some safety lock out for maintenance and before you are strapped in

author: paulca
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2020, 10:06:05 am
content: Quote from: Gixy on April 16, 2020, 07:15:43 amYes and no. The pins are shown to the pilot by the crew chef when he/she hands the plane over to the pilot. The pilot will conduct a walk around while all the panels are open, then check them again when they are closed. He will then accept the aircraft. The pins are out long before he climbs aboard.There may well be a pin in the arm/disarm handle, but I'm 99% sure that is out when the pilot boards the plane.Here is an awesome video (F/A-18) uncut video showing the full sequence.And here is a commentary video on the above.The safe/arm handle is clearly visible at 6:00At 07:00 other yellow/black chevron's items to note, from left to right. Canopy jetison (lever). Weapons Jetison (Round button, Admiral's doorbell) and on the right, the spin recovery mode switch.

author: jogri
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2020, 10:59:42 am
content: Quote from: paulca on April 16, 2020, 10:06:05 amThat yellow/black handle at 6:00 is not the safe/arm switch, that's the manual relase... You can see the safe/arm under the papers, it is at the same height as the joystick and it is white as the seat isn't armed yet (you can see that the black/yellow "armed" side is tilted forwards).The Rafale uses a slightly different system but since the manufacturer is the same i'd guess that the safe/arm is still in the same position although it has a different design.I marked the manual relase handles red and the safe/arm switches blue in both pictures.Here is a quote from that manual about the functions of both handles:Quote

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2020, 10:27:31 am
content: I didn't realise, BOTH ejector seats were actually activated (one ejected, the other partly did). But, the pilots seat, stopped, part way through its sequence. So, the canopy top, was explosively released (injuring the pilot, slightly), but then it stopped (malfunctioned).So, it was not that easy for the pilot to return to base. Details in video.Also, the dingy failed to inflate and all the fighter planes in the fleet (of that type) had to be grounded from flying for a few weeks, until the issues were processed (cleared for flying again). Some time later.

author: jogri
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2020, 11:28:59 am
content: Quote from: MK14 on April 18, 2020, 10:27:31 amThat's quite the understatement given that the pilot had to deal with:-a changed center of mass of his airplane (okay, we are talking about ~150kg on a 15 ton jet)-a massively changed airfoil: losing the canopy meant that the plane suddenly produced a metric sh*tton of drag, ruining the normal airflow and drastically reducing the lift the plane generated-a plane that is aerodynamically unstable under normal conditions and requires aid from a computer to be flown ->i don't think the computer has programs for a "the ejection sequence kinda worked/how about flying a cabriolet" situation, meaning that the pilot had to fly it with reduced help from the flight computer

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2020, 12:22:48 pm
content: Quote from: jogri on April 18, 2020, 11:28:59 amThat makes sense.Plus the risk, that the pilot, could have been ejected, at any time. He had to depart it very quickly, because of the risk of it suddenly deciding to work properly. Which is why the pilot (correctly), immediately moved safely away from any built up areas, before heading back to the military airport.Apparently, they left the plane for 24 hours, after landing, without going near it. In case the ejector seat went off, if they went near it.

author: Alphaprot
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: April 18, 2020, 01:22:12 pm
content: I have no clue about fighter jet systems, but if I was the French Air Force, I would investigate why a system designed to engage both ejection seats once one is activated simply fails and leaves one seat in a somewhat superposition state where it is technically engaged but physically nothing has happened so far. That appears to me to be a risk which should be mititigated.Imagine a fighter pilot on the rear seat (aren't they used for targetting and controlling the aircraft's weapon system?) loses consciousness in mid-air in a combat situation. Plane gets problems and both pilots SHOULD immediately exit via their ejection seats. The conscious front-seated pilot engages his seat's handle and saves his life, but the other pilot won't survive as his seat won't autoactivate (but it should by design, as the article says).EDIT:QuoteI'm not sure, but don't the Rafale's have autotrim (pretty standard in newer fly-by-wire systems)? So a slightly altered CG shouldn't add that much trouble.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2020, 01:57:48 pm
content: Quote from: Alphaprot on April 18, 2020, 01:22:12 pmit can carry 9500kg of ordinance and fuel on the outside, I suspect dropping that causes bigger changes in CG and handling.an ejection seat that doesn't eject and a life raft that doesn't deploy on plane that is still used in active service has go to cause some seriousquestions to maintenance

author: Ground_Loop
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2020, 01:59:05 pm
content: Quote from: shakalnokturn on April 10, 2020, 11:44:39 pmFighter pilots are known to be fairly intelligent. What do you base your term "idiot" on? When I ask about idiot, my reference is the general usage here in the states which is simply someone with a different opinion than yours.

author: paulca
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2020, 05:33:18 pm
content: I can't find the videos now, but afemalepilot of the F14 tomcat experienced an engine failure on approach to the carrier. Instinctively she opened the throttle to the remaining engine to avoid stall, abort and climb out. In the original Tomcat this was a coffin corner on the graphs. So close to stall on the final to a carrier an engine loss needed nearly full power from the other engine to not stall, but full power from the other engine induced a yaw moment so close to stall that it spun. Keeled over and headed straight to the water.The RIO in the back seat seen the situation go critical and pulled the handle, ejecting both pilot and RIO.

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2020, 06:16:27 pm
content: Quote from: paulca on April 18, 2020, 05:33:18 pmIt seems to be this one:

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 18, 2020, 07:25:15 pm
content: I heard of one pilot being killed by a malfunctioning ejection seat, that did an uncommanded eject over the ocean. His body was recovered, but the plane never was, as it went down in about 6km of water, in a very rough sea area. I had actually met that pilot a few times, but at that time was more than a year out of that base. I never liked climbing into a cockpit with the seat still there, both because it is incredibly cramped for a tall person ( pilots tend to the short side, to fit the aircraft) and also because of those two yellow black handlkes, with the only thing keeping you safe being the 2 ball detent release pins.I still use one as a tool box latch, as the armourers always had plenty of used ones around.

author: jmelson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2020, 03:15:44 am
content: Quote from: Alphaprot on April 18, 2020, 01:22:12 pmNope. When both seats are occupied, the ejection selector is set to "both" by the pilot. In that case, if EITHER pilot pulls his ejection handle the system blows the canopy, then the rear seat ejects first, then the front seat. If the canopy fails to jettison, then the seats are ejected through the canopy after a slight additonal delay.The rear seat has to go first, as the rocket motor from the front seat would fry the rear seat guy if he was still there.There is a "single" position on the ejection sequence selector so that the front seat guy can eject faster if there's nobody in the back seat.As for the center of gravity, the complete seat system with all the pyrotechnics, parachute, survival kit, oxygen and radio generally weighs more than the pilot. But then, a few missles and bombs weigh a lot more than that. Anyway, for rapid maneuvering, the control surfaces on the fighter jets are QUITE large, and can produce PLENTY of force to overcome a little change in CG. Note the F-15 that had a midair in Israel 20-some years ago, and was flown back to the base with one wingCOMPLETELY sheared off!JonJonJon

author: jmelson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2020, 03:19:30 am
content: Quote from: MK14 on April 18, 2020, 06:16:27 pmYes. The RIO (rear seat) goes first, then the front seat later, to spare the rear seat of the flame from the ejection rocket motor.By the time the sequence system fired the front seat, the plane was upside down, and she was fired straight down into the water at high speed.Jon

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2020, 03:30:54 am
content: Quote from: jmelson on April 19, 2020, 03:19:30 amVery sad incident.On the other hand, this is an amazingly good one (for the F15), video below:Quote from: jmelson on April 19, 2020, 03:15:44 am

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 19, 2020, 06:06:33 am
content: Quote from: jogri on April 18, 2020, 11:28:59 amPlus the hug mental situation knowing full well that his seat was supposed to eject too, and it could have done so at any instant.

author: jogri
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2020, 04:03:52 pm
content: You can also look at it the other way round: He knew that his ejection seat was supposed to go off, but didn't. That means he can't be sure if it will eject him in case something goes wrong during the landing, which he has to do in a badly damaged plane that was never supposed to be flown in that condition. If he stalls it, he is probably dead.On the other hand, the ejection seat will probably kill him if it goes off (either accidentally or if he has to use it during landing): The harness tensioner charge was already activated when his passenger left the jet, meaning that their is no way for him to be properly secured if the rocket motor of his seat fires up. The main function of the harness tensioner is to align his head+spine with the thrust vector of the rocket motor (by forcing him back into his seat) to minimize the risk of his spine collapsing under the immense acceleration, he might snap his neck if he remains leaned forward (normal flight position) when it goes off.