F18 ejection at Amberley

[Sprucegoose]

As reported late this afternoon there was a double ejection from a Hornet at Amberley (on takeoff) with the pilots and aircraft appearing to be safe. This is always engineering and skills displayed at a cutting edge.

I will try to find some footage.

 

[tgh]

Thats a headline…. got my attention

 

[jb747]

The F18 looks to have survived, apart from some soot from the bang seat motors, and a bit of mud and grass on the tyres. The RAAF lost a Growler on take off a year or so back.....

 

[Daver6]

Some footage post accident in this article $75 million Super Hornet crashes in aborted take-off at RAAF Base

 

[tgh]

They firies must have been finishing their coffee..
Curious about who decides what and when in terms of dealing with the aircraft.
Did they drown it in foam eventually.. or did a fitter wander up with a ladder and shut everything down ?

 

[OZDUCK]

Some footage of the crew landing under parachutes and the F18 going for a little trundle.

Pilots forced to EJECT as military jet emergency unfolds at RAAF base

The major incident involved a Super Hornet at an air force base in Queensland.

7news.com.au

 

[trooper]

Seems a bit odd.... if it was going slow enough to "trundle" to a stop... why eject? I can only assume there was a danger of an engine explosion??? Given how the pilots I know feel about the very THOUGHT of using a parachute I can only assume they had very good reason!

 

[TheRealTMA]

Seems a bit odd.... if it was going slow enough to "trundle" to a stop... why eject? I can only assume there was a danger of an engine explosion??? Given how the pilots I know feel about the very THOUGHT of using a parachute I can only assume they had very good reason!

I don't know the details but some aviation "expert" on ABC yesterday said it was an "automatic" ejection, whatever that means. Sounded like the plane decided it didn't like the pilots?

 

[jb747]

Seems a bit odd.... if it was going slow enough to "trundle" to a stop... why eject? I can only assume there was a danger of an engine explosion??? Given how the pilots I know feel about the very THOUGHT of using a parachute I can only assume they had very good reason!

Using a parachute (i.e. jumping out the door) and using a bang seat are two very different mind sets.

I suspect the risk was nothing to do with engines, but with the possibility of the aircraft overturning. They are great aircraft but terrible off roaders.

I don't know the details but some aviation "expert" on ABC yesterday said it was an "automatic" ejection, whatever that means. Sounded like the plane decided it didn't like the pilots?

No such thing as an automatic ejection. But, what it probably was, is called a command ejection. If the guy in the front seat decides to go, as part of his sequence, the canopy goes, then the back seat, then his seat. The back seat has to go, as it would be fatal for the occupant to be there as the front seat rocket fires.

Rear seat command ejection exists too, and is used as the norm in USN operations. I don’t think the RAAF uses it.

 

[trooper]

Yes..I was joking about the parachute use! But thank you! Overturning did NOT occur to me.... obvious in hindsight (as most things are lol). "Terrible off roaders"...classic line that! Glad the crew were both safe...hope they didn't suffer any injuries....

 

[albatross710]

anyone heard any more on the cause of this?

 

[pauleg]

Using a parachute (i.e. jumping out the door) and using a bang seat are two very different mind sets.

I suspect the risk was nothing to do with engines, but with the possibility of the aircraft overturning. They are great aircraft but terrible off roaders.

No such thing as an automatic ejection. But, what it probably was, is called a command ejection. If the guy in the front seat decides to go, as part of his sequence, the canopy goes, then the back seat, then his seat. The back seat has to go, as it would be fatal for the occupant to be there as the front seat rocket fires.

Rear seat command ejection exists too, and is used as the norm in USN operations. I don’t think the RAAF uses it.

Thanks for that - overturning risk very interesting. And “off road” is classic . Appreciate it.

Post automatically merged: Dec 14, 2020

Using a parachute (i.e. jumping out the door) and using a bang seat are two very different mind sets.

I suspect the risk was nothing to do with engines, but with the possibility of the aircraft overturning. They are great aircraft but terrible off roaders.

No such thing as an automatic ejection. But, what it probably was, is called a command ejection. If the guy in the front seat decides to go, as part of his sequence, the canopy goes, then the back seat, then his seat. The back seat has to go, as it would be fatal for the occupant to be there as the front seat rocket fires.

Rear seat command ejection exists too, and is used as the norm in USN operations. I don’t think the RAAF uses it.

Thanks for that - overturning risk very interesting. And “off road” is classic . Appreciate it

 

[Downthetrack]

RAAF pilot suffered 'impaired cognitive performance' before ejecting during aborted Super Hornet take-off, investigation finds

Human error has been officially blamed for a dramatic incident in which a RAAF Super Hornet pilot and a weapons officer ejected from their aircraft during an aborted take-off.

www.abc.net.au

 

[pauleg]

RAAF pilot suffered 'impaired cognitive performance' before ejecting during aborted Super Hornet take-off, investigation finds

Human error has been officially blamed for a dramatic incident in which a RAAF Super Hornet pilot and a weapons officer ejected from their aircraft during an aborted take-off.

www.abc.net.au

Thanks for that link - most interesting. I recall the incident and now nice to see a follow-up/explanation

 

[jb747]

Nice to hear that the aircraft did survive.

Warnings during takeoff should not turn into any sort of event. If the pilot was a student, maybe, but if he was qualified, I'd expect a lot better. And it looks like I was wrong about the RAAF using rear seat command ejection. I think the last time a 'back seater' initiated an ejection in the RAAF would have been the F-111 in NZ many years ago.

 

[tgh]

if he was qualified, I'd expect a lot better..

Indeed ,but perhaps Jb may enlighten us plebs about managing human performance in a high stress time critical military environment
If the pilot in this case failed to manage the situation, what processes could lead to it ?
Is there a "no blame" wellness monitoring system in terms of understanding the present capacity of the pilot ?

 

[jb747]

if he was qualified, I'd expect a lot better..

Indeed ,but perhaps Jb may enlighten us plebs about managing human performance in a high stress time critical military environment

It shouldn't be any more high stress than any other take off in a reasonably high performance aircraft. Our standard concept was to abort for anything up to 100 knots or so, with no consideration as to whether we could continue or not. Between 100 knots and V1 we'd only abort for very major failures such as loss of an engine or fire warning. The warning systems (and other crew) are inhibited above various speeds so that non critical warnings are not even displayed. Worth noting that for an F18, the option to abort exists at all points on the runway, as you can always engage the long field arrestor gear. Whilst a bit of crosswind and asymmetric loading may have biased the aircraft towards one side, that should be bread and butter. Basically, he lost control, in a straight line, due to allowing himself to be distracted.

If the pilot in this case failed to manage the situation, what processes could lead to it ?

I guess there would be a number of things to be looked at. The pilot's training history. The squadron (and RAAF) SOPs. The mindset of groups within the squadron.

Is there a "no blame" wellness monitoring system in terms of understanding the present capacity of the pilot ?

I doubt that the military operates in a "no blame" mode. They certainly didn't in my time. It isn't a touchy feely job, nor should it be.

 

[albatross710]

Nice to hear that the aircraft did survive.

Warnings during takeoff should not turn into any sort of event. If the pilot was a student, maybe, but if he was qualified, I'd expect a lot better. And it looks like I was wrong about the RAAF using rear seat command ejection. I think the last time a 'back seater' initiated an ejection in the RAAF would have been the F-111 in NZ many years ago.

JB747 is you haven't seen it, there is a nice summary of F18 & F111c accidents in this paper http://www.pigzbum.com/accidents/sifting-through-the-evidenc.pdf

 

[jb747]

JB747 is you haven't seen it, there is a nice summary of F18 & F111c accidents in this paper http://www.pigzbum.com/accidents/sifting-through-the-evidenc.pdf

An interesting read; thanks for the reference. I knew a number of the players in some of these events. One was even a student of mine at 1FTS. He was probably the best GF student that I ever saw.

 

[tgh]

In my younger days I read every aviation safety digest assiduously.
Surprisingly they are now all digitised and available here : Aviation Safety Digest
I opened the first edition and the pearls of wisdom came thick and fast..
this.. (1952!!)