[HN Gopher] French fighter jet joy ride goes tres, tres wrong (2... ___________________________________________________________________ French fighter jet joy ride goes tres, tres wrong (2020) Author : curmudgeon22 Score : 291 points Date : 2022-04-24 15:56 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.caranddriver.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.caranddriver.com) | scarier wrote: | It's wild that the ejection sequence failed. Some two-seat | aircraft have a "forward both, aft self" ejection mode for these | types of events where you don't trust the guy in the back to make | good ejection decisions, and I originally assumed that was what | happened here. Oops. | smileysteve wrote: | It's also practical; as the plane is moving forward, the aft | seat needs a head start to reduce chances of mid air collision, | or even burns. | everybodyknows wrote: | > the first ejection damaged the front seat, such that it | didn't eject | | This as well -- fairly damning evidence of failures in design | and/or manufacturing. Fortunate that the extemporaneous round | of belated testing happened over friendly territory! | TheFlash wrote: | The post-incident report found a design flaw in the box that | transmits the ejection signal from the back seat to the front | seat, allowing it to get damaged. That and one loose screw. | bombcar wrote: | It's kind of surprising how often people get a good idea for a | gift and totally ignore the recipient's cries of protest. | teh_klev wrote: | When I crossed into my forties a couple of friends were | insistent that I do "a big thing" of clay pigeon shooting, go | karting, overnighting in a rented a cottage, get all the guys | together etc etc. | | I point blank refused, I was going through a serious bout of | panic/anxiety attacks at the time, and this was the last thing | I needed. All I wanted was a few quiet drinks and a sit-in | curry with some local pals. The amount of sulking that went on | for weeks afterwards was quite something to behold. | listenallyall wrote: | progman32 wrote: | False dichotomy. | listenallyall wrote: | How? | schwammy wrote: | What a rude and unhelpful comment. If "stop feeling sorry | for yourself, just go outside and do things" was actually | good advice no one would have mental health problems. | listenallyall wrote: | Your comment is the equivalent of "if eat healthy and | exercise was actually good advice, nobody would be fat". | But it _is_ good advice (doesn 't mean it will cure 100% | of weight-related issues). It is certainly better than | "don't exercise and pig out." | | "Stop feeling sorry for yourself, just go outside and do | things" may not be a universal cure for panic and | anxiety, but it is certainly preferable to "isolate from | friends, stay indoors, drink, and don't try anything new" | which is what the OP described. | | edit: since my original comment has been flagged and no | longer viewable, it was NOT "stop feeling sorry for | yourself, just go outside and do things" | zh3 wrote: | I know that feeling; people projecting what they like onto | you, assuming therefore you will like it too and then getting | upset when you don't. It's horrible because it feels like | it's your problem - but it's really not. | imtringued wrote: | It's their problem because there is absolutely nothing | wrong with just asking. People want to surprise other | people with nice gifts while simultaneously having no idea | whether the recipient will want it. | katbyte wrote: | It's weird too, because if they wanted to do all that why | not just make that a separate plan/trip at a later date? | There's no reason to force it on someone when your free to | just go do it as a group later | ILMostro7 wrote: | Easier to justify. Maybe even a little test or shooting | off steam for their own life. | Ecco wrote: | The copy of this article is so good. The entire piece made me | laugh so hard. Thanks for posting this! | system2 wrote: | Came here to say this. After reading SEO riddled garbage for | years, this was a pleasant surprise. | sydthrowaway wrote: | Want to know more? Scroll past 2 pages of ads | BrentOzar wrote: | The author, Ezra Dyer, does spectacular work. He's written | many, many other brilliant automotive pieces around the web. | bonestamp2 wrote: | Agreed. The phrase, "al fresco fighter jet" is enough to | consider reading this article if you haven't already. | bennysomething wrote: | Had me in stitches that line :) | kergonath wrote: | Indeed. And then I felt bad for that old guy. But then it was | really hard not to laugh again. Very glad nobody got seriously | hurt. | vinay427 wrote: | Most Car and Driver pieces, even the relatively objective car | reviews, tend to be better than average in this regard, with | more editorialized pieces especially entertaining. It's one of | the main reasons I subscribe to the physical magazine despite | its very large proportion of advertising, which is at least | somewhat offset by a low subscription price. | frontierkodiak wrote: | Ezra Dyer is such a great car writer. I loved the Car & Drivers | of yore, especially pre-2010ish. Ezra's pieces are the only ones | left that remind me of why I was so obsessed with hoarding and | re-reading these mags as a kid. Even so, I miss how clever & | irreverent the old C&D was. | kingcharles wrote: | Ezra's column was always the first thing I turned to when C&D | turned up. | [deleted] | jll29 wrote: | I'm so sorry for the retiree. I'm sure the colleagues meant well | with this unusual present, and it probably was an admin effort to | pull it off, but he was clearly uncomfortable to receive his | gift. | | What hasn't been covered in the comments, to my surprise, is the | aspect of peer pressure that made him accept the present. This | wasn't a gift voucher for a flight in a hot air balloon, so | colleagues should have planned for a "plan b" in case he wasn't | going to have the flight for fear for his safety. Apparently, | social pressure was exercised to coerce him - bad, shame on them! | mcculley wrote: | This is a perfect example of how state militaries have more power | than they are mature enough to handle. | | This is the likeliest explanation for The Great Filter, in my | opinion. Civilizations develop power well beyond their wisdom and | then snuff themselves out. | woodruffw wrote: | I don't understand the connection you're making. This was a | civilian who happened to work in the defense industry; we have | no indication that he was otherwise familiar with the | mechanical workings of the fighter jet he was put in. For all | we know, he was the night janitor at a warehouse. | mcculley wrote: | I don't blame the civilian. I am not optimistic that the | military organization that owns this fighter jet is capable | of making good decisions. | codr7 wrote: | I think the point was more about the entire chain of command | that allowed themselves to be talked into allowing the flight | to take place. | mcculley wrote: | Exactly. These organizations are entrusted with nuclear and | biological weapons. | mc4ndr3 wrote: | And these people conduct wars. | hef19898 wrote: | No, usually passengers on joy rides are not conducting combat | operations. | [deleted] | alduin32 wrote: | So wrong that the GoPro that the retiree was wearing was not even | turned on, which is a shame, even if I doubt that the footage | would have been released. | H8crilA wrote: | A former US fighter pilot comments on this incident: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zIxqKwoHsM | | Intro ends at 1:25 | sokoloff wrote: | The top comment on that video is great. | andrelaszlo wrote: | I don't get it? | kube-system wrote: | https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Yeet | ChuckNorris89 wrote: | Depending if I'm watching the video on the mobile Youtube | app, or in the desktop browser, I get completely different | top comments. | | Mobile app: _" Pilot: you OK back there? Retiree: | Le'YEET!!!!"_ | | Desktop browser: _" He got everything in one trip. Ride in a | fighter jet, ejecting, and a sky dive."_ | | Another testament to Youtube's amazing UX consistency. /s | Jap2-0 wrote: | I see "I flew backseat Mig-29. Will always remember pilot | pointing at my ejection handle "please do not grab this, my | government will be unhappy with both of us" [emoji]" | [deleted] | sokoloff wrote: | In mobile incognito, I get that as well. | ChuckMcM wrote: | Ouch! I'm glad the guy is okay, that could not have been "fun" | given the description of the ejection. | | In Sunnyvale they used to train Orion P3 crews at Moffett field. | Of course Sunnyvale and the surrounding towns had a few military | contractors doing RADAR development who did not have many | military targets to paint, so when a P3 flew over it made for a | good "real life" test. | | On one such flight, the check pilot decided to "spice up" the | newbie pilot's life as they returned to Moffett field by casually | flicked on the RADAR threat detector. Sure enough, one of the | contractor's search RADARs was 'pinging' them, but unexpectedly | they were also testing a tracking RADAR which then subsequently | got a good lock on the plane. That made the RADAR LOCK alarm go | off in the cockpit and the trainee, as he was trained to do, | immediately hit countermeasures without thinking. (That will save | your life!) | | The plane was on final approach to the field, and when it | activated countermeasures it consisted of both chaff and IR | flares (bits of magnesium, lit and cast to the side to distract | heat seekers) These mostly landed on the Sunnyvale golf course | which is in the approach path. | | I used to play that course, and after this event there were a | number of burn spots where the flares had landed and then burned | out on the ground, and for probably two months there were bits of | foil chaff that could be found in various nooks and crannies | around the course! | oconnor663 wrote: | > immediately hit countermeasures without thinking | | Out of curiosity, if this is the doctrine, why doesn't the | plane just fire countermeasures automatically? | tbihl wrote: | Ah, the balancing act of human in the loop. | samstave wrote: | This was super interesting regarding the ejection seat's | features and behavior depending on speed and altitude at | which the seat ejects. | | https://martin-baker.com/products/mk16-ejection-seat-for- | raf... | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | Some systems do. I've worked on one. | ceejayoz wrote: | If you're low on countermeasures you may want to dole them | out more sparingly. | dasudasu wrote: | Pretty much. There's a recent video going around of a | Russian helicopter in Ukraine firing off all its flares in | panic after its sister helicopter is taken out by MANPADS. | Predictably, the Ukrainians wait until he runs out, and | then he gets taken out anyway. Not that hard to search for | it. | krisoft wrote: | Indeed. I was thinking about the same video in response | to this question. | | Here is a link: https://twitter.com/Blue_Sauron/status/15 | 17817773199699977 | oconnor663 wrote: | It seems like the natural next step would be | "automatically deploy countermeasures while you still | have [some threshold] remaining, then revert to manual | below that," but I can also see how needing to train | pilots in two or more different modes starts to pile up | complexity costs and maybe leads to more mistakes | compared to a simpler system. | samstave wrote: | /Why, I _oughta_.... | | -- In Military Countermeasures | Diesel555 wrote: | https://extantaerospace.com/products/ALE-47_CDU.pdf [pdf] | | In the picture above you will see a dial for modes. They | range from human tell the machine exactly what to do, to | human consent to what the machine wants to do, to machine do | what you want to do. | inamberclad wrote: | Love those old stories. I've climbed through the P-3 on static | display outside the ramp, and I wish they still flew more of | them around there. I used to be friends with a guy at the local | grocery store who was a P-3 mechanic. | marcodiego wrote: | Ejecting from a fighter plane is not only dangerous. It is | relatively common that people who eject develop spinal injuries | because of it. | vba616 wrote: | Meanwhile, in Soviet Russia: | | "For improved pilot survivability the Ka-50 is fitted with a | NPP Zvezda K-37-800 ejection seat, which is a rare feature for | a helicopter." | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-50 | | Yes, ok, it has explosives to blow away the rotors. But how | many different ways could that go wrong... | qaq wrote: | There was a single successful ejection in Ukraine so far | AnimalMuppet wrote: | Well, you'd (theoretically) only do it when not doing it | would be _worse_. So all those ways it could go wrong won 't | kill you, because you were already going to die. But if it | all works, you _might_ live. | vba616 wrote: | What if the rotor destruct system fired when you weren't | ejecting tho? | | I can't find the specific incident easily by Googling, but | I read a long time ago about an incident, possibly with | F-16s, a training exercise where suddenly a sidewinder | fired uncommanded, and took out another plane. | | You would _think_ that would surely be human error, but | investigation showed that apparently something just shorted | out. | AnimalMuppet wrote: | Well, if it takes off the rotor, hopefully it _also_ | ejects you. If it doesn 't, well, you should probably | promptly initiate ejection. And the ejection should be | easier, since there's now no pesky rotor in the way... | ChuckNorris89 wrote: | _> Meanwhile, in Soviet Russia:_ | | There are videos on Youtube with captured Russian pilots who | ejected their aircrafts in the recent Ruso-Ukrainian war and | they all had pretty big gashes on their necks and their | overalls soaked in blood from all that bleeding like a stuck | pig. | | Apparently the canopy and ejection system acts like a | guillotine on Russian aircrafts, but that's just what I've | heard, I'm no expert on soviet era ejection seats, so if | anyone has more info on this would love to learn more. | zabzonk wrote: | There are other problems. My Dad had an engine fire in his RAF | Vampire over East England, didn't have an ejector seat, and | decided it would be better to belly-land the thing, which he | did, succesfully, in a cabbage field. | | He got out of the Vampire and trudged over to an old yokel who | had been sitting watching all this. | | Dad: Is there a phone around here? | | Yokel: You'm will be paying for all them cabbages? | rendall wrote: | Hmm. Was the farmer compensated? | zabzonk wrote: | No idea. I'm not sure he should have been, but he very | probably was - but my Dad was risking his life to protect | the farmer, so Dad would not have paid for it. And as far | as I know people were compensated for RAF crashes on their | property - they certainly are now today, though RAF pilots | do everything they can (up to their own deaths) to avoid | militraliry accidents. | [deleted] | sealeck wrote: | How was he risking his life to protect the farmer? | zabzonk wrote: | If you knew anything of the history of the RAF you would | not ask this. | mechanical_bear wrote: | You could just answer the question. Obviously there are | many readers here not intimately aware of RAF history. | SirYandi wrote: | I assume they were referring to the blitz in WW2, where | the RAF defended Britain from Nazi bombing runs. | wtallis wrote: | The plane in question doesn't seem to have entered | service until shortly after the end of WW2: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Vampire | zabzonk wrote: | The question is really not about a particular fighter, | but about the RAF. | zabzonk wrote: | Are you expecting me to write an article for you here on | the RAF, rather than you doing a search? | MerelyMortal wrote: | One person spending 1 minute to write a reply versus a | dozen people spending 15 minutes trying to find the right | answer. | Dayshine wrote: | How was a post war RAF fighter crashing during training | exercise protecting our country? | | Has the RAF been anything other than a deterrent in | Europe since then? | wolverine876 wrote: | For most of its history, RAF pilots haven't been fighting | wars or risking their lives. | wolverine876 wrote: | > my Dad was risking his life to protect the farmer | | The farmer is an equal citizen with equal rights, | regardless - that is what the pilot was protecting. | ChuckNorris89 wrote: | _> I 'm not sure he should have been, but he very | probably was - but my Dad was risking his life to protect | the farmer_ | | Why not? It's not your father who should compensate the | farmer but the government. And if government property | causes damages to a citizen's livelihood, then the | government should compensate them. At least, in a | civilized democracy. | zabzonk wrote: | And that's happens in the UK. Of course, the farmer has | to put in a claim, and I mean't that I do not know if he | did so. | | Hence: | | > but he very probably was | scarier wrote: | This is supposedly where the idiom "bought the farm" comes | from. | ILMostro7 wrote: | Closer to "not in my backyard", until and unless it | absolutely and directly benefits ME | AnimalMuppet wrote: | I don't think so. It came from the life insurance paying | off the family farm (if I understand correctly). | InCityDreams wrote: | A lot of people sure don't get British humour, with a 'u'. | upofadown wrote: | A reaction like that implies that the farmer was screwed over | in a previous incident or has heard of someone that was. | [deleted] | huhtenberg wrote: | Lol... somebody sure had a lot of fun writing this up :) | jug wrote: | Now that's an article author that enjoys his job. | nickt wrote: | It's a Martin Baker seat. At least he'll get a tie. | | https://martin-baker.com/ejection-tie-club/ | lastofthemojito wrote: | Irritatingly imprecise wording on that page: | | > Here at Martin-Baker, we run an exclusive club that unifies | all pilots whose lives we've helped save: life membership of | the Ejection Tie Club is confined solely to those who have | emergency ejected from an aircraft using a Martin-Baker | ejection seat, which has thereby saved their life. | | Does that mean you need to be a pilot to be a member of the | club? Or does being a co-pilot or passenger qualify? And if | you're testing the ejection seat (wittingly or unwittingly as | in the case of this article) in a healthy airplane, such that | it isn't a life-saving technique, do you still qualify? | nraynaud wrote: | no, but you have bail out volontarily and in a dangerous | situation, the question has already been put to the | manufacturer: no tie for the unluky retired. | dylan604 wrote: | Voluntarily leaving your healthy plane will get your | license revoked by the FAA as we've recently seen happen. | kube-system wrote: | Only if you're the pilot. | ILMostro7 wrote: | Where? | ghostly_s wrote: | That odd story a couple months ago where some guy | seemingly crashed his plane deliberately for tiktok | clout? | userbinator wrote: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31104691 | | And before, | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29729307 | LittlePeter wrote: | A YouTuber purposely crashed his plane in California, FAA | says: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31104691 | kergonath wrote: | That is terrible PR. In any case, who knows what would have | happened if he'd stayed on board, considering that nobody | seemed to care about the limits the doctor set? | | On the other hand, he probably does not want a reminder of | his "adventure". | tbihl wrote: | >In any case, who knows what would have happened if he'd | stayed on board, considering that nobody seemed to care | about the limits the doctor set? | | He would've been much safer, though maybe he would've | passed out (which I fully recognize as an unpleasant | experience.) Ejecting from a jet would be a very | hazardous day for _any_ job. | [deleted] | ChuckMcM wrote: | Given the spirit of the club I bet he got a tie. | adwww wrote: | A co-pilot is still a pilot, and nobody willingly ejects from | a healthy aircraft. | | Ejecting can still go wrong, and subjects your body to huge | compressive forces - it's not uncommon to fracture your | spine. | | Interesting point about non pilot crew though - although | there must be a fairly limited number of fast jets that have | mission crew with ejector seats. Perhaps a couple of US | bombers? | chrisseaton wrote: | > Interesting point about non pilot crew though - although | there must be a fairly limited number of fast jets that | have mission crew with ejector seats. | | I mean you're reading an article about one, aren't you? | Also the Panavia Tornado. F-15E, etc. | dylan604 wrote: | Wasn't there a plane (thinking bomber with you) that | ejected down from the aircraft so that the minimum altitude | was super important? | rjsw wrote: | Early F-104 Starfighters had a downward-firing ejection | seat [1]. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfigh | ter#Eje... | [deleted] | robonerd wrote: | The Soviet Tu-22 (a bomber) also did this. (Though not | the Tu-22M, which is basically a different plane.) | lstodd wrote: | http://www.airforce.ru/aircraft/miscellaneous/ejectionsea | ts/... | | Super convenient - climb a ladder, strap in and then tech | guys winch you up with a hand crank (on first models). | | Altitude less than 1500 ft and you're dead. G-load above | a threshold and its rails jam, so you're not going | anywhere. 1950s tech that flew into 1990s. | adwww wrote: | B52 ejects in all directions, some up, some down ha. | rwmj wrote: | The Avro Vulcan had two ejection seats, for the pilot and | co-pilot, and nothing for the three other crew members. | They had a door and were expected to bail out, which | after they switched to flying low level under enemy radar | wasn't really possible. Predictably this lead to several | tragedies. https://hackaday.com/2021/01/11/the-v-bomber- | ejector-seat-co... | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Vulcan | robonerd wrote: | > _subjects your body to huge compressive forces - it 's | not uncommon to fracture your spine._ | | I've heard that military pilots are retired from flying | after the second ejection (regardless of the reason for it) | due to this spinal injury concern. It must be one hell of a | kick in the ass. | darrenf wrote: | Back in the 1950s and 60s my dad was a parachute training | instructor for the RAF. As well as teach others how to | safely jump out of planes, he also basically did QA for | ejector seats. | | His service ended when one such seat really wasn't ready | for humans. It totally fucked his back up -- he didn't | become wheelchair bound, but was told to never lift | anything heavier than a cup of tea for the rest of his | life. Registered disabled from his mid-30s. Ejector seats | were, and I assume still are, no joke. | rich_sasha wrote: | Ejection seats also got a lot more powerful over time. | The gold standard now are 0/0 seats, so called because | they can be used at 0 altitude and 0 speed. Earlier seats | had speed and/or altitude requirements. | | Presumably this means that they kick you harder too, with | all such subsequent effects. | robonerd wrote: | Many early ejection seats used explosive charges instead | of rocket motors. These were less powerful overall | (didn't throw pilots as far from the plane) but I suspect | they might have kicked a lot harder in the instant of | ignition. | kayodelycaon wrote: | Modern ejection seats have a smoother acceleration curve | than the early ones. | jimmaswell wrote: | > nobody willingly ejects from a healthy aircraft. | | You'd think so, but sadly: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29729307 | kayodelycaon wrote: | Technically, that's a bail-out. Has somewhat fewer | rockets and high-g forces than an ejection seat. | sydthrowaway wrote: | I dont get it. Is the parachute deployed of the ejection too? How | did the man survive | imglorp wrote: | The sequence is fully automatic: as soon as you pull the | handle, the canopy pyros blow a hole, the straps pull the | occupant's limbs in, the seat launches, separates from person, | finally chute deploys. Your next inputs after pulling the | handle are steering and landing the chute if you are conscious. | | By the way, the gentleman should be receiving a necktie from | Martin Baker. | | https://ejectionsite.com/ | orbital-decay wrote: | Yes, the parachute is in the ejection seat, it's deployed | automatically later by necessity, as the pilot could be injured | and/or unconscious. | ledauphin wrote: | read this far superior retelling: | | https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a32131240/french-dassault-... | [deleted] | dang wrote: | Ok, we've changed to that from | https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/13/man-who-never- | wanted-.... Thanks! | Jenz wrote: | do you read everything on the front page? o_O | bombcar wrote: | It doesn't take a ton of effort, but dang may have advanced | searches setup. | dang wrote: | Not anymore. I used to keep more on top of it but now I | just feel guilty about not. | jt2190 wrote: | The Mercury News article is a syndicated CNN piece: | | Text-only version: https://lite.cnn.com/en/article/h_2ab74240 | 9be210c718777d3fb8... | curmudgeon22 wrote: | Agreed, this version is better | [deleted] | daniel-cussen wrote: | There's the story of the guy, he was in GQ I think, who was | answering questions like "What is't like to:" "Get ejected from a | fighter jet?" | | Scary shit, his flying machine was starting to do its real job | which is of being a suicide machine, so he had to bail. The guy | think he was an airman, became an inch shorter. | | EDIT: I would say instead of "real job" I would say "original | job." Early aviation was full of deaths. First the guys jumping | off the Eiffel tower with wings, splat. Then the famous German | glider Otto Lilienthal, splat. Then more experiments, then | eventually the Wright Brothers, who said "how do we fly without | going splat?" Their invention was how to control the machine, | wing warping. Others already could power it, just not control it. | And they both lived in fear of splat, that's why they refused to | fly on the same flying machine. | altgans wrote: | I think this is the official french military report on this: [1]. | | 1: https://omnirole-rafale.com/wp- | content/uploads/2020/04/Rappo... | zepearl wrote: | Interesting & funny article, but but... my brain keeps focusing | on the fact that the pilot's ejection seat did not work => is | that usually supposed to happen? In this case the Rafale wasn't | even doing anything fancy... . | poof131 wrote: | In the F/A-18 we had a selector that you could set to "both" or | "rear only" exactly for this type of scenario. Qualified NFO in | the backseat, you want both, and I know people who's lives were | saved crashing off the carrier. But for a ride along, "rear | only" is definitely the correct setting. And I'm pretty sure | this has happened before, remember stories from years ago. | jaxomlotus wrote: | I mean it sucks that this happened, but kudos to the writer, | because this article is hilarious. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-04-24 23:00 UTC)