RAAF PC9 Crash

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's always a lot worse when it's a high performance jet... engine failure at high speed, low altitude in a Rhino could be disastrous..

Thank God the two pilot's are okay. A lesson they will no doubt never forget..
 
Nahh, the tie is enclosed on a metal tin

[even more off-topic]is the F111 ejection capsule made by MB?

No, its made by McDonnell. My reference to the shortened tie for those that may not be aware was alluding to the fact those that survived a F111 ejection were often at least an inch shorter after it!
 
My reference to the shortened tie for those that may not be aware was alluding to the fact those that survived a F111 ejection were often at least an inch shorter after it!

I get spam every day with offers to help fix that... ;)
 
PC9.jpg

Bit of a mess, as you would expect, picture from news.com replay of the channel 10 news,

http://i840.photobucket.com/albums/zz330/markis100/PC9.jpg
 
Last edited:
It's always a lot worse when it's a high performance jet... engine failure at high speed, low altitude in a Rhino could be disastrous..
What are you referring to?

An engine failure, per se, at low level isn't all that bad, as long as the aircraft is still flying. Convert the speed to height, and then eject.

What you don't want at the point of ejection is either a high sink rate (in which case you might get to the ground before the chute opens), or high air speed. The opening shock of some parachute systems is probably worse than not having a chute at all. Last time I looked, Martin Baker systems did not give chute deployment until you're decelerating at less than 4gs (which is an indirect way of measuring the IAS), so a very high speed, very low level, ejection could have you in the unhappy situation of getting to the ground before getting below the magic 4g.

Vietnam era American seats didn't worry about the deceleration; they would give you a chute as long as you were below about 13,000 ft. And just to add to the fun, they were explosively blown open (with what was called a ballistic spreader). So, about 600 knots to 20, in about 1.5 seconds from pulling the handle. The incentive to get the aircraft slowed was huge...

Thank God the two pilot's are okay. A lesson they will no doubt never forget..
A lesson..or an experience?

For what it's worth, virtually everyone who ejects ends up with some level of back problems. Even the simulator (I wonder if they still use that) was like having everyone you'd ever met kick up in the bum simultaneously.

Looking at the pictures of the PC9, I wonder if they had the aircraft on the forced landing approach, but simply didn't have enough energy to make it all the way.
 
What are you referring to?

An engine failure, per se, at low level isn't all that bad, as long as the aircraft is still flying. Convert the speed to height, and then eject.
You make it sound so simple :P What happens if you're weaving through a valley at high speed, suffer an uncontained engine failure disabling the FCS making it impossible to gain altitude.

The only advantage I see in engine troubles occurring in a Rhino over a PC9 would be the two engines. A Rhino at MAX power is more than capable of sustaining flight, depending on fuel, payload and other systems remaining viable of course.

Given the obvious difference in flight envelope of a PC9 and Rhino, I'd rather have an engine failure and bail out at 200kts than 550kts.....

A lesson..or an experience?

A lesson they would never forget in the context of the PC9's principle role being a trainer - I assumed the crew were student and instructor. A comment made prior to seeing the photo.
 
You make it sound so simple :P What happens if you're weaving through a valley at high speed, suffer an uncontained engine failure disabling the FCS making it impossible to gain altitude.
You may as well ask, "what happens if the wing falls off"? It's always possible to make any problem hard enough for it to be beyond handling. If the FCS instantly fails, you're most likely a mark on the treeline. Otherwise, ROLL, PULL, is in every fast jet pilot's instant reaction list.....

My point is that your scenario is less likely and probably less dangerous, than straight and level, very fast, at low level. Valley running is not done at high speed. It's most likely being done at 'corner velocity', or close to it. You can't turn worth a damn at high speed. In numbers, that's probably 360 to 420 kias...uncomfortable, but survivable ejection territory.

The only advantage I see in engine troubles occurring in a Rhino over a PC9 would be the two engines. A Rhino at MAX power is more than capable of sustaining flight, depending on fuel, payload and other systems remaining viable of course.
Two engines is a rather big advantage, and most likely explains the very low attrition rate of our F18s compared to the Mirage. But, you won't need anything like max power...and anyway, external stores are gone...literally at the flick of a switch.

Given the obvious difference in flight envelope of a PC9 and Rhino, I'd rather have an engine failure and bail out at 200kts than 550kts....
.
So would I, but my point was that I did not, and still don't, think you understand why high speed is bad. How about thinking about this phrase (which is, as best I can remember it from a USN accident report..in which the crew survived)...the ejection resulted in the displacement of some internal organs to outside of the body.......

Speed to height sounds simple. It is simple. And it is the solution that every knuck in the world will try to achieve. Eject at as slow as speed, and as high, as possible.

A lesson they would never forget in the context of the PC9's principle role being a trainer - I assumed the crew were student and instructor. A comment made prior to seeing the photo.
As East Sale does no ab initio pilot training, and is the home of the Central Flying School, I'd expect that the student was a fully qualified pilot who was undergoing the RAAF instructors' course. So yes, he's student, but not in the sense that you normally think of.
 
So would I, but my point was that I did not, and still don't, think you understand why high speed is bad.

It's not hard to imagine why high speed increases the risk of death...... I'm not sure where you are heading with that comment.. High positive G forces and blasting wind... what's difficult to understand..?
 
Now I assume that ejecting from an inverted aircraft would not be a good idea :shock:. Or worse still, ejecting from straitman's previous "office".
 
Now I assume that ejecting from an inverted aircraft would not be a good idea :shock:. Or worse still, ejecting from straitman's previous "office".

What did straightman fly? A Wessex?

Inverted does not matter, as long as the sequence has time to complete, with a few seconds to spare before ground impact.

Inverted with an upwards vector, is almost certainly better than erect, with the vector going down.
 
Read our AFF credit card guides and start earning more points now.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

It's not hard to imagine why high speed increases the risk of death...... I'm not sure where you are heading with that comment.. High positive G forces and blasting wind... what's difficult to understand..?

Wind blast is a big issue. It will almost certainly break or dislocate anything it can get a hold of, which is why leg restraints are part of most systems. Of course, that helps, but it doesn't stop....

High positive G......Have you worked out the g loading involved in the numbers I gave you? 600 kias to 20 kias in 1.5 seconds. Basically, the harness will cut you to pieces...literally. The violence involved is hard to imagine. One of my friends ejected, and broke both of his legs in the ejection itself (i.e. before leaving the coughpit). Another went out using a ballistic spreader system, at a mere 360 kias, and it made a real mess of his lower back.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.
Back
Top