F-16 Down Pilot killed ejection seat malfunction

NovemberEcho said:
yeah I def wouldn’t expect it to be feasible from ground level. I was just asking cause you said that seat malfunction wouldn’t be survivable regardles of altitude, which surprised me.
Click to expand...

the seat problem appears to have been with the mechanism that initiates the seat/man separation. Some issue with the automatic system. The seat/man separation occurs just as chute release starts, however if it doesn’t occur, you won’t separate from the seat unless you pull the manual chute release (unless there were further seat problems, which I’m not sure of). It’s possible that even at altitude, the inexperienced pilot might not have had the presence of mind to do that, or that it even would’ve worked. Sadly. It appears that the pilot was unknowingly riding in a seat that might not have had the ability to function correctly at all.
 
MikeD said:
I disagree about the finding regarding the Conference Hotel/X-Ray.
Click to expand...

The number is in the front matter of every PCL I've ever carried, but has anyone ever actually called it in the act of dealing with a (comparatively) low fuel/low time fighter aircraft emergency? I get it for a BUFF that can't dump and is going to be airborne until it can burn down or crashes in the process......but for us, the gear emergency long form is in the big book and it is in the F-16 -1 as well....and the most important bits are in the checklist as well. I've had a couple scenarios that recommended an LSO to be on station for a fly in arrestment, also gear/directional control related.....no chance there would be one "on station" in either scenario in time for it to matter. So I just put the VV on top of the A-gear and it worked out (both were false alarms notably). In short, I agree Mike. Easy to Monday morning QB without any real perspective of what resources are available in practice given time, ODO/SOF/Top 3 SA, and fuel.

This is a disgrace. How was that jet flying in what should have been a down status for so long? That is a rhetorical question of course
 
///AMG said:
The number is in the front matter of every PCL I've ever carried, but has anyone ever actually called it in the act of dealing with a (comparatively) low fuel/low time fighter aircraft emergency? I get it for a BUFF that can't dump and is going to be airborne until it can burn down or crashes in the process......but for us, the gear emergency long form is in the big book and it is in the F-16 -1 as well....and the most important bits are in the checklist as well. I've had a couple scenarios that recommended an LSO to be on station for a fly in arrestment, also gear/directional control related.....no chance there would be one "on station" in either scenario in time for it to matter. So I just put the VV on top of the A-gear and it worked out (both were false alarms notably). In short, I agree Mike. Easy to Monday morning QB without any real perspective of what resources are available in practice given time, ODO/SOF/Top 3 SA, and fuel.

This is a disgrace. How was that jet flying in what should have been a down status for so long? That is a rhetorical question of course
Click to expand...

That’s the issue. It works well for transport/tanker planes that have a lot of fuel endurance. But for a fighter waiting to recover? And in this instance, at 2300? Good luck getting the manufacturer engineers contacted, briefed up, and a solution come up with at that hour, before the fighter flames out from fuel starvation. That’s why I think this is a bogus finding. It’s BS to expect that with the limitations I just outlined. So the SOF helped more than usual due to the inexperience of the pilot, and they came up with a viable solution, since he’s got the Dash 1 and not just the abbreviated. Approach end/short field arrestment is standard for this as you’re aware.

The seat issue, now that’s just inexcusable. As well as having this the multiple training and supervision failures here: why was he doing a night tanker hop with so few day iterations? Why did the RAG kick the can to the ops squadron to get him AR qualed? Why did squadron supervision send him on a demanding sortie with no airborne supervision? How was this particular jet on the line with a seat issue and who deferred it? Of course, the initiating event was screening up the night landing, but the accident certainly unearthed a myriad of problems in many areas. I believe the SOF did his job good, with what his responsibilities are.
 
Was *anyone* aware that he had a malfunctioning seat as this was going on?

Seems like that might be some pretty pertinent information in the decision making process as to how to handle this.

Is it that big of a deal to take an aircraft out of service to fix the seat?
 
FlyingAccountant said:
Was *anyone* aware that he had a malfunctioning seat as this was going on?

Seems like that might be some pretty pertinent information in the decision making process as to how to handle this.

Is it that big of a deal to take an aircraft out of service to fix the seat?
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t think it would have been difficult to gain this part; if not through the normal supply system, then through one of very many ACES-seat equipped jets sitting at the boneyard.
 
Mike - just curious, would he have likely been reassigned had he survived? Not thinking about the balked refueling, but about hitting the localizer antenna on arrival. Would that wash out someone relatively new like that?
 
FlyingAccountant said:
Was *anyone* aware that he had a malfunctioning seat as this was going on?

Seems like that might be some pretty pertinent information in the decision making process as to how to handle this.

Is it that big of a deal to take an aircraft out of service to fix the seat?
Click to expand...
It was known prior to 2017 that 10% ejection failures were attributed to the DRS defect. It affects the sequence , the orientation (Rocket firing), type of separation (low , high, bank etc) ... hence the pilot being ejected into the ground. A fix was required but skipped due to a lack of available parts and deferred for 3 years !
I would've immediately grounded that aircraft, a life is priceless period. I've been labeled "Mad Dog" because of my attitude when safety is involved (Of course they think... I don't know... :biggrin: )
 
Murdoughnut said:
Mike - just curious, would he have likely been reassigned had he survived? Not thinking about the balked refueling, but about hitting the localizer antenna on arrival. Would that wash out someone relatively new like that?
Click to expand...

He’d possibly face a Flight Evaluation Board if the jet had been destroyed during the initial landing, due to the nature of the pilot error of the initial accident sequence. Ultimately that would be up to the Wing Commander and Numbered AF commander most likely.
 
melax said:
It was known prior to 2017 that 10% ejection failures were attributed to the DRS defect. It affects the sequence , the orientation (Rocket firing), type of separation (low , high, bank etc) ... hence the pilot being ejected into the ground. A fix was required but skipped due to a lack of available parts and deferred for 3 years !
I would've immediately grounded that aircraft, a life is priceless period. I've been labeled "Mad Dog" because of my attitude when safety is involved (Of course they think... I don't know... :biggrin: )
Click to expand...

The jet itself was otherwise fine, so I’m wondering why the seat itself wasn’t just swapped out as a unit, and replaced with a seat acquired from a grounded jet or a boneyard aircraft; rather than have a deferment on a life support item, if parts weren’t available (which makes no sense either, as parts are plentiful through a number of sources). That way the jet still flies, just with a different seat.
 
MikeD said:
The jet itself was otherwise fine, so I’m wondering why the seat itself wasn’t just swapped out as a unit, and replaced with a seat acquired from a grounded jet or a boneyard aircraft; rather than have a deferment on a life support item, if parts weren’t available (which makes no sense either, as parts are plentiful through a number of sources). That way the jet still flies, just with a different seat.
Click to expand...
When the TCTO was issued, they was no bone yard or grounded aircraft that could have supplied the parts as it was a "new fix" the parts would have to have been sourced from the manufacturer (new, upgraded parts) , so if unatainable at the time of inspection, this lack of life saving feature should've triggered an immediate grounding until remediation.
 
melax said:
When the TCTO was issued, they was no bone yard or grounded aircraft that could have supplied the parts as it was a "new fix" the parts would have to have been sourced from the manufacturer (new, upgraded parts) , so if unatainable at the time of inspection, this lack of life saving feature should've triggered an immediate grounding until remediation.
Click to expand...

agree. Said jet then should have become a hangar queen until repaired. The last thing the AF should be doing is having pilots/crews second guessing the confidence in their life support and egress equipment.
 
MikeD said:
agree. Said jet then should have become a hangar queen until repaired. The last thing the AF should be doing is having pilots/crews second guessing the confidence in their life support and egress equipment.
Click to expand...
Furthermore, it's even worst when you assign that deffective aircraft to a new pilot and send him out for a AAR mission at night !
 
melax said:
Bone yard aircraft's didn't have the upgraded parts, didn't you read what I posted ?
Click to expand...

I'm not being argumentative but understand that an "unavailability of parts" can mean different things. Tell me I'm wrong but AMARC parts pulls to support depot maintenance has historically been sketchy. Manufacturers have been understandably reluctant to sign off on scavenged parts.

I haven't reread the entire thread. Was there a citation that specifically referenced incompatibility with anything sitting at AMARC?

Beyond that, I'm curious if it was clear that a diagnostic result should have led to a grounding. Did someone miss a grounding mandate or was it a fuzzy flowchart?

First refueling at night? Nutty.
 
Last edited:
Pilot Fighter said:
I'm not being argumentative but understand that an "unavailability of parts" can mean different things. Tell me I'm wrong but AMARC parts pulls to support depot maintenance has historically been sketchy. Manufacturers have been understandably reluctant to sign off on scavenged parts.

I haven't reread the entire thread. Was there a citation that specifically referenced incompatibility with anything sitting at AMARC?

Beyond that, I'm curious if it was clear that a diagnostic result should have led to a grounding. Did someone miss a grounding mandate or was it a fuzzy flowchart?

First refueling at night? Nutty.
Click to expand...
Maybe you can explain how can you regenerate a part that never existed before, Time travel ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top