Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

40 years ago at the RAE in Farnborough, I was told that most pilots who bang out lose between 1-3cm in height - even the ones who don't have obvious crush fractures in their spinal vertebrae. It seems that everything just gets "squished" down a bit. Moreover, some of them regained a cm or so in the following months!
I'm sure there is more up to date research on the subject but that is what they knew then.

They do, but my understanding (with my negligible medical knowledge) is that unless they've managed to actually crush something or rupture a disc, they'll get it back. Ballistically opened parachutes, or high speed ejections, would be likely to do real harm, but being a tad shorter is still better than the alternative. Of those I know who have ejected, there was the entire range of outcomes, from no problems to lots.

 

[ausfox]

Ejection seats were initially one big explosive cartridge so just one enormous acceleration and resultant damage to the spine. This progressed to multiple cartridges (from memory 5 in the Mirage) and then a rocket to provide a more gradual acceleration .
Then you have to encounter the effects of being thrown into the air at high speed, hoping all of your arms and legs came out of the coughpit with you.

 

[jb747]

Ejection seats were initially one big explosive cartridge so just one enormous acceleration and resultant damage to the spine. This progressed to multiple cartridges (from memory 5 in the Mirage) and then a rocket to provide a more gradual acceleration .
Then you have to encounter the effects of being thrown into the air at high speed, hoping all of your arms and legs came out of the coughpit with you.

Martin Baker never used just one charge in an operational seat. They tested with a single charge, but it caused injury without achieving sufficient height to ensure tail clearance. So, they moved to two charges and that was then in their original seat. The MB seat fitted in the Macchi used three charges.

I don’t know when it was started, or if it stopped, but when I did pilots’ course, every student rode the test rig at AvMed. It used a multi charge seat, with only one charge fitted. It launched you a couple of metres up the rail.

 

[ausfox]

NAA used a single cartridge in the Sabre from memory.

 

[jukebox333]

@jb747 if you have access to Twitter, Murray Smythe has posted some nicer footage of RAN traps:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1588797404530511874

Co-incidently, the same bird as the YouTube RAN/AWM footage - #889 - but the tail markings are different, so it is not a repost.

 

[jb747]

Another of 889.

 

[jb747]

The videos above show two very different ejection outcomes. Dave in 885 is the first, and his seat fires and launches him quite a way up. His parachute subsequently snagged on the sinking aircraft, and he was dragged under, but he managed to get clear and popped to the surface. After we lost the A-4s he joined the Royal Navy, and had a career flying the Sea Harrier, eventually gaining command of one of their squadrons. As a sideline he also flew for the RN Historic Flight, and so has time in the Swordfish.

The second video actually happened years earlier, and shows a failed ejection. The canopy fires, but the seat doesn’t, so he rode it into the water. He got clear after the ship had passed overhead. He eventually became a Cathay 747 pilot.

 

[Saab34]

First time I have ever seen a USA flight take 27 departure from Melbourne (QF93). Here is the ATIS. Any reason why they wouldn’t opt for 34? Can’t see any Notams for 34.

INFO R. TMP: 7. QNH: 1004. EXP GLS OR ILS APCH. RWY 27. WET. WX: RA. VIS: GREATER THAN 10 KM, REDUCED TO 6 KM. WND: 240-300/15-35 KTS. MAX XW 23. CLD: FEW031 BKN042.

 

[Quickstatus]

Might be the wind direction and wind speed?
What’s max takeoff crosswind for 787?

 

[Saab34]

I see that however I thought they would still opt for the longer runway, was a post on here a while back about taking longer runways vs a strong hwind for long haul.

 

[D747]

WND: 240-300/15-35 KTS. MAX XW 23.

I am NOT a pilot but from my education via this thread I would offer the following: If the wind was at 240º it becomes a tailwind on RW34, which when combined with a wet runway and a possible crosswind limit being exceeded the longer runway becomes impossible. I'm sure that the best or only option was RW27 and that's why it was used. 35 knots is a significant headwind so V1 is much earlier distance-wise on 27 than usual. I'm sure the pilots will correct all of my mistakes and please remove if it's wrong for me to guess.

 

[justinbrett]

I am NOT a pilot but from my education via this thread I would offer the following: If the wind was at 240º it becomes a tailwind on RW34, which when combined with a wet runway and a possible crosswind limit being exceeded the longer runway becomes impossible. I'm sure that the best or only option was RW27 and that's why it was used. 35 knots is a significant headwind so V1 is much earlier distance-wise on 27 than usual. I'm sure the pilots will correct all of my mistakes and please remove if it's wrong for me to guess.

Regardless of the aircraft capabilities and limits, ATC cannot advertise a duty runway with crosswind greater than 20kt or any tailwind if it's wet. That doesn't stop the aircraft in question requesting (or requiring) an alternative runway.



There are some exceptions to these limits due noise abatement legislation (common in Sydney) and if there's no alternative, suitable runway. In this case whilst 27 and 34 both exceed the crosswind limits, 27 has a lower max crosswind, and nil tailwind.

 

[jase05]

First time I have ever seen a USA flight take 27 departure from Melbourne (QF93). Here is the ATIS. Any reason why they wouldn’t opt for 34? Can’t see any Notams for 34.

INFO R. TMP: 7. QNH: 1004. EXP GLS OR ILS APCH. RWY 27. WET. WX: RA. VIS: GREATER THAN 10 KM, REDUCED TO 6 KM. WND: 240-300/15-35 KTS. MAX XW 23. CLD: FEW031 BKN042.

I’m not sure if it has anything to do with the F35’s operating combat training runs from RAAF East Sale today as RAAF Williamtown is out of action due to maintenance

 

[justinbrett]

I’m not sure if it has anything to do with the F35’s operating combat training runs from RAAF East Sale today as RAAF Williamtown is out of action due to maintenance

No, it has nothing to do with that.

 

[jase05]

No, it has nothing to do with that.

Cheers for that.
Just out of interest how much impact on commercial aircraft operations would there be when the RAAF are buzzing around the Bay?

 

[justinbrett]

Cheers for that.
Just out of interest how much impact on commercial aircraft operations would there be when the RAAF are buzzing around the Bay?

In truth, outside of a military training area (like WLM), it's the reverse question (what can RAAF do without disrupting civilian operations). Between MINDEF and MINTRANS, the latter wins on this stuff.

There is no circumstance where RAAF aircraft are going to stop/delay operations at MEL & SYD, short of a 5 minute flypast for a special event or an exceptional real world operation. Emergency diverts are another, but that applies to all aircraft.

They get away with more at DRW, TSV and NTL as they are joint user bases (actually technically NTL isn't even a joint user base, it's a full RAAF base and civilian aircraft can be delayed until the cows come home).

These days even military restricted areas have their days numbered (Ie, R574, the oceanic airspace next to Williamtown, probably won't last the decade). Flexible use of airspace they call it....

 

[jb747]

First time I have ever seen a USA flight take 27 departure from Melbourne (QF93). Here is the ATIS. Any reason why they wouldn’t opt for 34? Can’t see any Notams for 34.

INFO R. TMP: 7. QNH: 1004. EXP GLS OR ILS APCH. RWY 27. WET. WX: RA. VIS: GREATER THAN 10 KM, REDUCED TO 6 KM. WND: 240-300/15-35 KTS. MAX XW 23. CLD: FEW031 BKN042.

When doing the takeoff numbers you look at the worst case winds. So, on 27, it’s 30º either side of track at 15 knots. Which would give you an effective headwind component of 13 knots. But for the crosswind, it would be 17 knots. On 34, the worst case is a tailwind of about 6 knots, but the crosswind is up to 35 knots. On a wet runway that would almost certainly exceed the limit.

I see that however I thought they would still opt for the longer runway, was a post on here a while back about taking longer runways vs a strong hwind for long haul.

Whilst that was generally my preference, it could be affected by many factors, so there’s no hard rule.

I don’t have any access to 787 take off data, but this aircraft was about 25 tonnes below structural max takeoff weight. I‘d expect it was close to the performance limiting weight.

 

[ayebee]

I’m not sure if it has anything to do with the F35’s operating combat training runs from RAAF East Sale today as RAAF Williamtown is out of action due to maintenance

We are at Mt Martha and it was spectacular when a couple of F35s first passed over quite low heading north, then dropping even lower over the bay.
About 10 minutes later one came back south and did a sweeping turn to the east right overhead, leaving a vapour trail I presume from the low overwing pressure. They are really loud !!
Looked on FR24 and nothing showed.

It was certainly windy today with strong westerlies, and some very strong gusts rattling everything.

 

[mjt57]

Richard DeC was on the radio this morning. Apparently, according to him, airlines are pushing for single pilot crews. Could this ever happen? At least on short domestic flights?

 

[SYD]

Richard DeC was on the radio this morning. Apparently, according to him, airlines are pushing for single pilot crews. Could this ever happen? At least on short domestic flights?

Next step to pilotless aircraft…