←back to thread

278 points Michelangelo11 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Molitor5901 ◴[] No.45038583[source]
Considering they relieved a pilot of command for ejecting when his F-35 become unresponsive, now they make them sit on conference calls. That pilot is very brave, I think others would have ejected by now. Making them fly around up there is ridiculous.
replies(4): >>45039343 #>>45039426 #>>45039456 #>>45039485 #
5f3cfa1a ◴[] No.45039343[source]
Ejecting from an airplane is no joke: 18g of force leaves 20-30% with spinal fractures, and ejection seats have an 8% mortality rate[1]

It seems to me that continuing flight with inoperative/damaged landing gear while you discuss alternatives with engineers is the safest option. Burn fuel, make a plan, let people on the ground mobilize to help, and eject when you've tried what you can and it truly becomes the safest option.

[1]: https://sites.nd.edu/biomechanics-in-the-wild/2021/04/06/top...

replies(2): >>45039577 #>>45039587 #
crote ◴[] No.45039577[source]
It makes you wonder if it would be possible for ejection seats to have a safer bailout mode. Sure, the "compress your spine" mode is definitely appropriate during a wartime situation where someone has shot your wings off, but is it really required when a mechanical failure leaves you unable to land yet in a more-or-less stable flight at a reasonably low speed? Perhaps a 6g ejection might be more appropriate in those cases?
replies(5): >>45039735 #>>45039854 #>>45039886 #>>45039903 #>>45040118 #
1. lazide ◴[] No.45040118{3}[source]
Did you watch the latest Tom Cruise mission impossible movie? Unless you want to be the bad guy at the end, you need to be very clear of the aircraft if you’re ejecting. For a fighter aircraft, that necessarily requires very violent forces.

It’s a major concern with skydiving too - there are many aircraft it’s impossible to safely exit in flight without impacting some part of the airframe.