WTF!!! (French Airforce FUBAR)

[james_s]

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!

I 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...

[Gixy]

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...

[tszaboo]

as far as I know many rollercoaster are 4g, I think the -0.6g feels much worse

RC 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/

The incident took place at Florennes Air Base in the afternoon of October 11 **. Two maintainers working on Belgian Air Force F-16AM fighter jet accidentally fired the plane’s M61 20-millimeter, six barreled Gatling gun. The 20-millimeter cannon rounds struck another F-16AM sitting nearby that was fueled up and prepared for flight. The resulting fire and explosion completely destroyed the fighter. A second fighter parked nearby suffered light damage.

** 2018

[SkyMaster]

So, what kind of sanction did the pilot receive?

 

[SiliconWizard]

On the upside, imagine what would happen if both ejection seats fired and they lost the aircraft in such idiotic circumstances

Yeah, the technical fault with the ejection system actually saved the plane here .

[SiliconWizard]

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!

I 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...

Yeah. 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?

[james_s]

Yeah. 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?

I 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.

[Halcyon]

I'm guessing a strongly worded directive was sent around shortly after that.

 

[wasyoungonce]

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 this

https://psemc.com/products/explosive-sequence-control/

This suggests it does....http://www.safran-martin-baker.com/smbf_web/UK/ejection-seat-MKF16F.awp

Why 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?

[SeanB]

I live below a flight path.....

Flypast by SeanB_ZA, on Flickr

[SiliconWizard]

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 this

As 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.

[james_s]

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.

[SiliconWizard]

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 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.

I'm shocked that there is both no way to lock it out,

I 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!

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.

As 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.

[magic]

they did not hammer it into this guy's head to never, ever touch the ejection handle unless it's an actual emergency

He wasn't strapped properly in his seat, flapped around in the breeze and grabbed some random thing to hold

[SiliconWizard]

they did not hammer it into this guy's head to never, ever touch the ejection handle unless it's an actual emergency

He wasn't strapped properly in his seat, flapped around in the breeze and grabbed some random thing to hold

The 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.

[Red Squirrel]

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.

[langwadt]

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornfield_Bomber

[m98]

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.

[sam[PS]]

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...

[paulca]

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.

Which 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.

[paulca]

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.

[jogri]

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.

[jmelson]

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).

The 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

[paulca]

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.

[jmelson]

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 pyrotechnic lines use hexanitrostilbene, I think.  It is very heat resistant, and needs a strong initiator to start the shock wave.

Jon