←back to thread

291 points Michelangelo11 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.199s | 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 #
the__alchemist ◴[] No.45039854[source]
I wonder about that. Maybe the added complexity is a con? I.e. the default would still be full force, but a controlled ejection mode could be gentler, but still capable of clearing the aircraft reliably in straight/level flight.
replies(1): >>45044379 #
1. LorenPechtel ◴[] No.45044379[source]
Straight and level isn't the issue, airspeed is.