That successful 2011 Mustang baleout - A case study

[p51]

Anyone who faults the man for joining the birds is one of those types who thinks they know everything.
If you're one of them, you weren't there. I've flown with the quasi 'bold pilot' type before, and we know the adage about those. I rode in a fighter once in the back seat with a guy who thought to fly the plane as far to the ground as possible in the case of a problem and I seriously doubt if that'd happened to us, that the pilot would have popped the canopy until it was way too late.
Knowing the facts that we know, the photos of the aircraft before it rolled over and what the pilot said, it seems downright nutty to question why he hit the silk. I've never met the man and wouldn't even know him if I met him, but I'd rather have him around v/s the Mustang if I had to choose (and if it was him, it'd be the plane, too, anyway).

[Baldeagle]

My first thought was the same as one of Dudley's comments-- why were they doing breaks from Vic instead of echelon? Presumably they had been doing it this way for years?



-

[mlenoch]

Dudley pointed out that Vic's are a RAF convention. They are flown to honor those old combat formations of the 1930s.

Vic's were also very vulnerable to Luftwaffe intercepts.

Thus they continue to fly the Vic presentation at Duxford, in spite it being a very dangerous formation for break ups.

VL

[JDK]

Thanks Ken, some good thinking there, I suggest.

Please note Yankeepapa's post folks.

The Flying Legends show has the final Balbo break being done from echelon formation in some of the years earlier - based on my recollection and photographs. (I wasn't there in 2011, or 2005-07, 2009-present, so can't comment.)

The Balbo has required the recovery of between 20 and nigh-on 40 aircraft in a relatively short time period, to a pair of parallel runways, one grass, one metal.

I'm not sure there's any 'RAF heritage' type reasons, nor do I know when or how often Vic were used. (I vaguely recall 'box' formations too, but not if they were used to break for landing from.) The intensity, density and complexity of the Flying Legends display is exceptional, compared to the vast majority of equivalent warbird-type shows around the world. It could be safer, as most shows (sadly) could, but I didn't start a safety-orientated thread for incomplete-data speculation. It would be easy to ask TFC rather than speculating and drawing erroneous conclusions, or back-form theories - however that's not what this thread is about.

Also remember some of the US' best warbird airshow pilots are regular participants of the Flying Legends show - they are known to the pilot posters, so offline person-to-person discussions are perfectly viable, avoiding any transatlantic assumptions or language barriers.

A more useful derivative discussion would be the recommendation (really a 'thought floated') in the AAIB report:

"...He was fortunate that his injuries did not prevent him from operating his parachute deployment mechanism. Had he been incapacitated, there was no automatic means, such as a static line, for deploying the parachute. The low height also meant that the parachute had to be deployed as soon as the pilot had cleared the aircraft structure. As a result, the following Safety Recommendation is made:
Safety Recommendation 2011-083
It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority considers, where a parachute is worn as safety equipment, whether the provision of an automatic means of operating the parachute would provide a safety benefit."

Let's assume this could be a pilot / owner driven idea, rather than an authority one (that's not actually important in terms of safety). I'm sure most can see the issues as well as the possible benefits here, so thoughts?

Regards,

[FastRacer5]

"...He was fortunate that his injuries did not prevent him from operating his parachute deployment mechanism. Had he been incapacitated, there was no automatic means, such as a static line, for deploying the parachute. The low height also meant that the parachute had to be deployed as soon as the pilot had cleared the aircraft structure. As a result, the following Safety Recommendation is made:
Safety Recommendation 2011-083
It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority considers, where a parachute is worn as safety equipment, whether the provision of an automatic means of operating the parachute would provide a safety benefit."

As a warbird pilot and also sport skydiver I don't think AAD's (Automatic activation devices) will ever be used with pilot reserve parachutes. Take for example the unit I own in my skydiving rig, its a Cypres 2 system. It opens the reserve parachute container at a preset altitude if the descent rate exceeds a preset activation speed. This indicates that the user has not opened his parachute, or that the parachute is malfunctioning and is not slowing the descent rate sufficiently, thus it will cut away the main and deploys the reserve automatically, if I was conscious or not.

They work great and have saved a lot of lives, it's nice you know you can jump at 14,000 feet and if you hit your head on the plane on the way out and are out cold, your reserve will deploy. The problem is the Cypress 2 system works in a preset threshold sensing your body terminal velocity (give or take 120, depending on body position) and altitude. If you're in a plane doing a dive to a low flyby, boom ......... The pyrotechnic charge releasing your reserve just went off in the plane.

It's possible to design a pilot AAD system that would work, but the amount of variables to work around are quite large. The time and energy would be better spent working with BRS Aerospace (Ballistic recovery systems) to help design a BRS package geared toward the P-51 mustang and other warbirds. I believe the biggest challenge is building a system that could support the planes weight + inertia at time of deployment.

[Ken]

Two points for ya, JDK.

1. Although the vic pitchout may not be a "best practice", almost anything may be made acceptable assuming it is properly briefed. As a previous poster said, the AD-4 pilot broke a cardinal rule, "Never lose sight of Lead". While this thread has the potential for some valuable discussion, this accident, IMHO, boils down to this simple, yet critical, point ie. had they flown in a traditional echelon and still collided due to lost sight, the results would have been the same.

2. Not to mix ejection seat features with free-fall parachutes, but the T-37 (for example) used a "zero delay lanyard", also known as the gold key. This ensured that, when connected, the pilot would receive immediate parachute deployment during the ejection sequence. When the key was stowed, the 'chute's internal barometer was allowed to initiate deployment, IIRC at/below 14,000'. The position of the key was an integral part of the takeoff, climb, approach, & before landing checklist. So the question is: Is there some sort of static line that could be used for emergency bailout and disconnected above a certain altitude ... or do the unintended consequences/complexity outweigh the benefits? Given today's technology where your car knows you are within a certain range of it (key fob in your pocket) I wonder if a more robust version of this technology could tell your 'chute when it was clear of the aircraft?

Ken

[JDK]

Thanks folks. Seems like a simple mechanical system has little merit, and there's unlikely to be enough market for a warbird compatible unit, of likewise arguable merit. Further thoughts?

[p51]

Thank goodness he didn't have someone else behind him. Just sayin'. You know for sure anyone in a back seat would be toast in that situation.
All this talk of auto-opening canopies makes me wonder about the safety briefs I've gotten on my fighter rides (the prop ones, that is). Now that I think back on it, I have no idea what kind of parachute system I was strapped into, all I remember was each had a standard ripcord to my left chest area. And as we were never all that high up, I'd have yanked that sucker immediately after clearing the tail if I'd had to bail out.

[eze240]

Aside from the possibility of tangling, why couldn't a simple static line be used?
It could attach to the seat, perhaps to an anchor used by the seat belt/harness. Maybe a simple loop and hook arrangement.....A line say 20 feet long would stretch back to the tail on most fighters....It wouldn't have to be a very large line, so it would take up little space.....
I would guess, that pretty much anytime a pilot bails out, He is not skydiving....so, the chute should open as soon as possible.
Although, it could cause problems on the ground.....perhaps hooking up the static line could be done after take off?