I must be slow because sometimes I just don't get it?

[fholbert]

What kind of landing gear emergency would dictate bailing out?

Date: 19-SEP-2015

Time: 10:00

Type: Beechcraft T-6 Texan II

Owner/operator: United States Navy

Registration:

C/n / msn:

Fatalities: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 2

Other fatalities: 0

Airplane damage: Written off (damaged beyond repair)

Location: Near Las Cruces International Airport (KLRU), Las Cruces, NM -

United States of America

Phase: Approach

Nature: Training

Departure airport: Las Cruces Intl (KLRU)

Destination airport: Las Cruces Intl (KLRU)
Narrative:The aircraft experienced a landing gear problem. A commanded ejection was made by the two man crew west of Las Cruces International Airport (KLRU), Las Cruces, New Mexico. The airplane was destroyed by the subsequent impact with terrain and the two pilots received minor injuries.
http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=179690
-------------------------------------------

Instead of doing a belly landing, the pilot decided to do a controlled ejection, where the pilot and co-pilot eject. Both had minor cuts and bruises, but no serious injuries, police said.

The plane crashed west of Las Cruces International Airport behind a nearby shooting range.

The crash temporarily closed the road to the Butterfield Shooting Range.

A squad of T-6 planes are used to train student pilots based at the Naval Air Station in Corpus Christi, Texas.
http://www.koat.com/news/navy-plane-crashes-near-las-cruces/35371314

 

[esa17]

If you look at the fatality rates for military pilots flying civilian aircraft as opposed to civilians flying them it tells the story. From very early on in their flight training they are taught that if the problem can't be fixed they should pull that magic handle and trade one problem for another. In contrast our training teaches us that our survival is tied to the airplane.

I can't tell you how many briefings I've been in where the fighter pilots go through an emergency of the day which includes a reading of the EP checklist. Care to guess what is the last line of almost all of them?

On another board I had a F-15 driver threaten to punch me for the above.

 

[fholbert]

If you look at the fatality rates for military pilots flying civilian aircraft as opposed to civilians flying them it tells the story. From very early on in their flight training they are taught that if the problem can't be fixed they should pull that magic handle and trade one problem for another. In contrast our training teaches us that our survival is tied to the airplane.

I can't tell you how many briefings I've been in where the fighter pilots go through an emergency of the day which includes a reading of the EP checklist. Care to guess what is the last line of almost all of them?

On another board I had a F-15 driver threaten to punch me for the above.

Yea, seems like punching out (not you) of an aircraft is a lot more dangerous than sliding down a runway enclosed on a metal tube.

 

[Hacker15e]

If you look at the fatality rates for military pilots flying civilian aircraft as opposed to civilians flying them it tells the story. From very early on in their flight training they are taught that if the problem can't be fixed they should pull that magic handle and trade one problem for another. In contrast our training teaches us that our survival is tied to the airplane.

I can't tell you how many briefings I've been in where the fighter pilots go through an emergency of the day which includes a reading of the EP checklist. Care to guess what is the last line of almost all of them?

On another board I had a F-15 driver threaten to punch me for the above.

I bet that was because you are talking out your butt on this topic.

What you are saying is not at all the EP philosophy of ejection seat aircraft in the USAF. Ejection is a last resort when it is considered the safer option of whatever the logical conclusion of the emergency is. This is in light of the fact that ejection is also considered a dangerous option that is likely to end up in some kind of injury for the guy pulling the handles. If you'd ever taken an egress/hanging harness class as an operator of an ejection seat aircraft, you would have seen all of this discussed in depth.

NO. We are absolutely not taught to "pull the magic handle" if "the problem can't be fixed".

NO. The "last line in almost all of" the emergency procedures in the checklist is NOT ejection. Even remotely. I'd be happy to let you go through my copy of the F-15E checklist (and T-38 checklist, if you so desire), and you are free to post exactly how many of the emergencies listed in it end in "ejection". Send me your address and I'll mail them both to you, and you can report the results right here to back up your assertion.

If "most" of the EPs of the day that you heard discussed ended in ejection, it is because those EPs chosen to be discussed were ones that led to that end. The monthly EPOD schedule is usually cherry-picked to include the emergencies that have the most intricacies and decision-tree options that could lead to bad things. Generally the simple emergencies aren't discussed as EPOD because...they're simple and don't generally need to be discussed verbally over the course of every month because of their simple terminations.

I have never been qualified to fly the T-6, so I can't speak for what the checklist says for the various gear malfunctions. If the manufacturer says that a certain type of gear malfunction should terminate in a controlled ejection, then that's what they're going to do. In the F-15E and the T-38, there were a couple gear malfunctions that required/recommended ejection, but others that just recommended an emergency landing.

None of us were ever at all eager to pull the handles because of that risk of injury. I know several guys who have had to eject, and they were all hesitant to punch out because of that same nagging fear in the back of their mind.

 

[MikeD]

What kind of landing gear emergency would dictate bailing out?

In the A-10, with a gear emergency, if at all possible land with all gear down, or all gear up. Secondarily with nose only or nose and one main.

One main only and/or both mains only, either with no nose gear; ejection was recommended due to the fact that on touchdown of the nose, the 30mm cannon would dig into the asphalt/dirt, and the jet would nose-over onto its back, trapping the pilot in the cockpit.

 

[esa17]

I bet that was because you are talking out your butt on this topic.

What you are saying is not at all the EP philosophy of ejection seat aircraft in the USAF. Ejection is a last resort when it is considered the safer option of whatever the logical conclusion of the emergency is. This is in light of the fact that ejection is also considered a dangerous option that is likely to end up in some kind of injury for the guy pulling the handles. If you'd ever taken an egress/hanging harness class as an operator of an ejection seat aircraft, you would have seen all of this discussed in depth.

.

You're a grown man at the tip of the spear, please don't take anything you interpret as an insult. Take a second and read what I said, I did NOT suggest that you were eager to punch out of an airplane. Stop getting upset and taking things personal.

Ejecting is taught as an OPTION from day 1. Tell me it's not.
In close to 50 briefs this year I've heard it close to 50 times. Of course you're not going to eject because you had a navlight fail but give me a break, how often are you going to have a total hydro failure or a dual engine flameout? Ejecting is an OPTION for many of your IFEs.

The law of primacy is a well studied phenomenon and I suspect it's why military-trained fatality rates IN CIVILIAN aircraft are so much higher. You guys are trained to do amazing things and that training has to follow a philosophy from day 1 which sets you up for the greatest chance of success for your given mission.

I am in no way shape or form suggesting that a military pilot isn't trained as well as a civilian so knock it off. I'm not a mouth breathing idiot and I've been around you guys my whole life, been working with you since 2010 so I'm not talking about of my butt. I am making an observation as an outsider, not as an adversary.

Again, to be perfectly clear. I am suggesting that while your training sets you up for success at your dangerous and demanding mission those skills may not initially translate well to non-military aviation much in the same way my 1800 "other than paved" landings don't do squat for me at a joint base.

 

[MikeD]

Ejecting is taught as an OPTION from day 1. Tell me it's not.
In close to 50 briefs this year I've heard it close to 50 times. Of course you're not going to eject because you had a navlight fail but give me a break, how often are you going to have a total hydro failure or a dual engine flameout? Ejecting is an OPTION for many of your IFEs..

While ejection is an option for so-equipped aircraft, it's not a simple one, as many civilian pilots may potentially believe it to be.

The differentiation first starts with uncontrolled or controlled bailout. Uncontrolled.....aircraft not in control for whatever reason.....the decision is pretty cut and dried.

Controlled bailout, where there is an EP that is either not landable, or that can't be resolved to keep the aircraft flying but the aircraft is still under control, that's the more complex one. Because alot has to be taken into consideration before selecting the nylon letdown option. From just handling the EP, to then determining it's not one where continued flight or a successful landing is possible, to then making a bailout decision, to preparing the cockpit and yourself for bailout, to selecting an appropriate airspeed/altitude combo in order to give the seat the best chance of saving you and best chance of success, to selecting an appropriate geographical area so the aircraft impacts somewhere where it will do none to least damage to the ground and those inhabiting it.

So to the idea of "if a problem can't be fixed, just pull the magic handle and trade one problem for another" or "give it back to the taxpayers", a little bit of background and description has to be given to the in-depth thought process that into ending up at that point, what that decision truly entails, and how that thought process differs between controlled vs uncontrolled bailouts.

That said, its indeed an option, but one that has to be exercised with due regard and care, taking into account the above items for a controlled bailout. Because it's not just as simple as trading one problem for another, oftentimes, it can easily become trading one problem for 100 others, as was seen in Indianapolis in 1987, Wichita Falls in 1995, San Diego in 2008, and a number of other times in the past few decades.

Incidentally, speaking of dual engine flameout, I can still recite the boldface checklist items for that EP for the A-10, and I haven't thought of that in over 11 years; a testament to how hammered into you the critical action EPs are.

 

[mikecweb]

In the A-10, with a gear emergency, if at all possible land with all gear down, or all gear up. Secondarily with nose only or nose and one main.

One main only and/or both mains only, either with no nose gear; ejection was recommended due to the fact that on touchdown of the nose, the 30mm cannon would dig into the asphalt/dirt, and the jet would nose-over onto its back, trapping the pilot in the cockpit.

You A-10 guys always have to say how big your gun is.

 

[Beefy McGee]

Regarding the T-6, I once asked some T-6 instructors I ran into at my old job about belly landings in them after one came in declaring emergency with some kind of gear warning.

This led to a convo about T-6 ejection seats and belly landings. I was told that in certain cases they eject rather than do belly landings due to the design of the seats. Apparently, they are strong/tough/built to protect from one direction of forces (want to say vertical) and not the other (horizontal).

So in a certain belly landing scenario, with a sudden/quick/not really sliding so much kind of stop, there was a real danger of the seats breaking/failing (like shearing forward then collapsing downward) resulting in serious injuries to the crew. I believe it was leg and/or back injury concerns they stated.

 

[hook_dupin]

This accident completely changed how the F-15 community viewed gear emergencies. The WSO almost lost his arm. Gear down, but not straight became a new category with eject being the end state. I'd bet by now that Pilatus/Beech/Raytheon/Textron have enough gear-related accidents in the PC-7/-9/T-6 to recommend different conclusions to different scenarios.

 

[fholbert]

This led to a convo about T-6 ejection seats and belly landings. I was told that in certain cases they eject rather than do belly landings due to the design of the seats. Apparently, they are strong/tough/built to protect from one direction of forces (want to say vertical) and not the other (horizontal).

So in a certain belly landing scenario, with a sudden/quick/not really sliding so much kind of stop, there was a real danger of the seats breaking/failing (like shearing forward then collapsing downward) resulting in serious injuries to the crew. I believe it was leg and/or back injury concerns they stated.

Based on acceptable G-loads I can't believe a seat would break sliding down the runway. G limits: +7.0g -3.5g

 

[Beefy McGee]

Based on acceptable G-loads I can't believe a seat would break sliding down the runway. G limits: +7.0g -3.5g

Sliding down a smooth runway, probably not. But in a sudden stop belly landing off-runway, soft soil, etc. you could exceed those limits. I remember reading an analysis of a wheels up landing for some kind of GA aircraft, a Bonanza maybe, that said it was about 9Gs of deceleration force when that plane was sliding to a stop on what was essentially a flat dirt field with short vegetation.

Anyway I'm just repeating what the Navy instructors said about belly landing a T-6.

Plus, those G limits would be "vertical" limits, not lateral limits, right? As in, it will withstand 7G of load, perpendicular to the wing spar/load carrying structure.

 

[RDoug]

This accident completely changed how the F-15 community viewed gear emergencies.

oooOOOooo. An RAF Lakenheath bird. I worked that control tower back when the 48th had the F-4D, and then transitioned to the F-111F — '76-'77.

 

[CFI A&P]

Some times you just have to bail out.

 

[Spicoli]

What kind of landing gear emergency would dictate bailing out?

New guy to this forum, but I have been a longtime lurker.

There is a blurb about considering ejection if only the nose gear is down. Random fact: the T-6 has had successful landings on a suitable runway with all gear up. Only answering the question you asked, but not implying that is what happened.

There are rumors out there on why the ejection was chosen, but nothing official. Until then, all we know is two fellow aviators survived and hopefully fly again.

 

[Zapphod Beblebrox]

I flew a 4 day with a guy who instructed in the Airforce version of that airplane. On of the issues between that airplane and earlier versions was the fact that there was no quick egress option on the ground without ejecting.

From Wikipedia:

Aircraft designed for low-level use sometimes have ejection seats which fire through the canopy, as waiting for the canopy to be ejected is too slow. Many aircraft types (e.g., the BAE Hawk and the Harrier line of aircraft) use Canopy Destruct systems, which have an explosive cord (MDC - Miniature Detonation Cord or FLSC - Flexible Linear Shaped Charge) embedded within the acrylic plastic of the canopy. The MDC is initiated when the eject handle is pulled, and shatters the canopy over the seat a few milliseconds before the seat is launched. This system was developed for the Hawker Siddeley Harrier family of VTOL aircraft as ejection may be necessary while the aircraft was in the hover, and jettisoning the canopy might result in the pilot and seat striking it. This system is also used in the T-6 Texan II.

With this system in place a quick opening manual canopy system is not used so it is difficult to get out of the aircraft on the ground quickly. That may be why the checklist calls for ejection rather than riding out a gear up landing, if there is a chance of post crash fire or other difficulty. That's my $02.

 

[chrisreedrules]

New guy to this forum, but I have been a longtime lurker.

There is a blurb about considering ejection if only the nose gear is down. Random fact: the T-6 has had successful landings on a suitable runway with all gear up. Only answering the question you asked, but not implying that is what happened.

There are rumors out there on why the ejection was chosen, but nothing official. Until then, all we know is two fellow aviators survived and hopefully fly again.

Long time listener, first time caller.

 

[Spicoli]

I flew a 4 day with a guy who instructed in the Airforce version of that airplane. On of the issues between that airplane and earlier versions was the fact that there was no quick egress option on the ground without ejecting.

With this system in place a quick opening manual canopy system is not used so it is difficult to get out of the aircraft on the ground quickly. That may be why the checklist calls for ejection rather than riding out a gear up landing, if there is a chance of post crash fire or other difficulty. That's my $02.

ZB,

As someone who as spent too many hours instructing in a T-6, I am trying to offer facts like I did with my first post. There is no checklist that calls for ejection if your only option is a gear up landing. It says that a suitable landing area is preferred. The T-6 has had recent gear up landings with no issue, where the canopy and the Canopy Fracturing System were both intact.

There is no Air Force version, per say. The Navy and Air Force fly the T-6A, and the Navy also has the T-6B. Only real difference is the T-6B has an upgraded avionics package and HUD.

The Navy has to run through the investigation process before details are released. Disclaimer: by offering reasons, and reasons not, to eject with a landing gear emergency, does not imply why the crew elected to eject.