Odd Question that Came Up Last Night

SteveinIndy

SteveinIndy

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Feb 8, 2008
Messages
522
Location
Under the pattern at KIND
Display Name
Display name:
SteveinIndy
One of my pilot buddies and a non-pilot friend were having a discussion and it came out that I am cross-qualified as a skydiver. My non-pilot friend asked "Does that mean you could wear a chute to bail out if the engine quit or something?" Honestly, I've thought about it because of the risks associated with things like engine out over a solid cloud layer, at night, etc. However, I am not sure- and neither was my pilot-rated cohort- if you would escape with your ticket if you decided to bail out from a truly crippled aircraft to save your own neck.

I know the aerobatic community tends to wear chutes (or so I've heard from the few aerobatic minded folks I've talked to) but can't think of a case where someone actually bailed out. They seem to ride the plane into the ground just like the rest of the GA community. Would the FAA have your ass for it? I know the old adage about "skin, tin, ticket" but I'm still curious as to how this would actually be viewed by the NTSB and FAA. My assumption would be it would partly depend upon where the plane finally came down at (corn field vs. playground during recess vs. the Indianapolis Airport Ramada Inn) and the circumstances of the incident. Any input?
 
I always wondered if my skydiving friends got the willy's when aviating bareback on mundane trips from point A to point B. I made a few jumps and it was interesting to me some folks visibly lowered their guard a bit as soon as the airplane was above a safe altitude to egress. They felt safest when they could superman out the door at the slightest sign of trouble. My perspective was opposite; we are looking down at an airport that is centered in a bunch of farm fields, why make a BASE jump un-necessarily if the engine sputters.

Wearing a parachute is mandated in certain circumstances so they presume you are going to use it. When you activate a BRS system, you are along for the ride, so if your airplane might land on a bus-stop whether you are in it or not.

For me, it would give me a twinge if I was going somewhere to skydive in the airplane and didn't put it on, I mean having it in the baggage compartment would seem like bad luck.

Todd
 
SteveinMichigan said:
I am not sure- and neither was my pilot-rated cohort- if you would escape with your ticket if you decided to bail out from a truly crippled aircraft to save your own neck.
Click to expand...
Your ticket would be fine. Bailing out of unflyable airplanes has been regularly done since the beginning of flying.

SteveinMichigan said:
I know the aerobatic community tends to wear chutes (or so I've heard from the few aerobatic minded folks I've talked to) but can't think of a case where someone actually bailed out.
Click to expand...
They bail out all the time. Sean Tucker jumped out of his Oracle airplane a few years back after having some control issues.

SteveinMichigan said:
They seem to ride the plane into the ground just like the rest of the GA community. Would the FAA have your ass for it? I know the old adage about "skin, tin, ticket" but I'm still curious as to how this would actually be viewed by the NTSB and FAA. My assumption would be it would partly depend upon where the plane finally came down at (corn field vs. playground during recess vs. the Indianapolis Airport Ramada Inn) and the circumstances of the incident. Any input?
Click to expand...

Trust me -- if the **** hits the fan to the point where you are jumping out of the airplane you will give a **** less what the FAA, NTSB, or any other agency thinks.

We don't generally jump out of perfectly good airplanes. Even if the airplane did smash through someones house -- it wouldn't be the bailing out that would get you. Now..they might come after you over what CAUSED the situation. This is why you do aerobatics over unpopulated areas.
 
I doubt very much that the FAA or NTSB would have any problem with you jumping from an aircraft that was on fire, had severely compromised controls, or was similarly crippled.

Parachutes are required for aerobatics, test flights, etc. anyways. Realistically, though, I can't think of many reasons to use the parachute even if I had one. It's not going to do any good on T/O and landing and staying with the plane is probably your best then. In cruise, I could see the utility if there were no airports nearby and you couldn't see the ground. Fires and control issues are of course a good reason, though....

-Felix
 
Keeping in mind, aerobatics and skydiving are done in very specific places. Not sure I personally would bail out of an airplane that had any sort of control at all over a populated area.

Back in '88 or so, a military fighter of some sort lost all control over Indianapolis. The pilot stayed with it as long as he had control. Once the flight controls locked up, he bailed out. The plane crashed into a hotel on the Indianapolis airport. Several people were killed, IIRC, but the pilot lived. They ended up tearing down the hotel. Too much structural damage.
 
They bail out all the time. Sean Tucker jumped out of his Oracle airplane a few years back after having some control issues.
Click to expand...

Ah....wasn't aware of that one, but then again I tend not to pay much attention to crashes where people don't get hurt or killed.

This is why you do aerobatics over unpopulated areas.
Click to expand...

It's one of the reasons I don't do aerobatics over any area.

Trust me -- if the **** hits the fan to the point where you are jumping out of the airplane you will give a **** less what the FAA, NTSB, or any other agency thinks.
Click to expand...

That was my way of thinking and exactly the approach I would take: "Screw you bastards, I'd rather be alive and not a pilot than dead."
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Keeping in mind, aerobatics and skydiving are done in very specific places. Not sure I personally would bail out of an airplane that had any sort of control at all over a populated area.

Back in '88 or so, a military fighter of some sort lost all control over Indianapolis. The pilot stayed with it as long as he had control. Once the flight controls locked up, he bailed out. The plane crashed into a hotel on the Indianapolis airport. Several people were killed, IIRC, but the pilot lived. They ended up tearing down the hotel. Too much structural damage.
Click to expand...
Was it last year or the year before an A/F-18 pilot bailed out in San Diego and the plane crashed into a house killing the whole family except the dad?

The pilot was not blamed for bailing out, there was question about some other aspects of the flight though.

I would think that the situation would be as jesse stated above. If the airplane is that un-flyable you have nothing to fear from the bailout.

My question is why would a person bailing out of a crippled aircraft be any different than if the aircraft had a BRS and the pilot pulled the chute on that?
 
Early 90's a skydiver jumped from a C-150 with an engine out and was charged by the FAA. The feds though he had other safe options(fields) and he was hasty in jumping. YMMV.
 
SteveinMichigan said:
It's one of the reasons I don't do aerobatics over any area.
Click to expand...

Assuming by "area" you meant populated or congested area another reason would be FAR 91.303a, but your reason sounds good too.


That was my way of thinking and exactly the approach I would take: "Screw you bastards, I'd rather be alive and not a pilot than dead."
Click to expand...

If the aircraft you bailed out of causes significant property damage or injures someone you're probably gonna get your pants sued off but if you knew that was likely and could have maneuvered it away from a congested area and chose to bail instead it seems plausible that you could be charged with criminal negligence. I don't know of any such cases, just saying it wouldn't surprise me.
 
smigaldi said:
The pilot was not blamed for bailing out, there was question about some other aspects of the flight though.
Click to expand...

Yeah. IIRC, the pilot passed up other suitable landing spots to try to RTB and didn't make it.

My question is why would a person bailing out of a crippled aircraft be any different than if the aircraft had a BRS and the pilot pulled the chute on that?
Click to expand...

Because with the BRS deployment, the aircraft is coming down in a reasonably controlled fashion. Pretty much the only property damage will be to whatever happens to be under the plane. And the chances of bodily injury to people on the ground are greatly reduced, if not eliminated.

If a pilot bails out of a plane that does not have a chute, there in no telling where that plane will end up. It will be out of control and depending on where it goes down, property damage and bodily injury could be substantial.
 
gismo said:
If the aircraft you bailed out of causes significant property damage or injures someone you're probably gonna get your pants sued off but if you knew that was likely and could have maneuvered it away from a congested area and chose to bail instead it seems plausible that you could be charged with criminal negligence. I don't know of any such cases, just saying it wouldn't surprise me.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't surprise me either. To me -- I'm more of a pilot than I am a sky-diver so I am going to feel safer sticking with the airplane if it is still controllable.

If I were to jump out of an airplane -- most likely -- it would be a situation that happened really fast and there were no other options. The airplane is already going to crash into whatever it crashes into. I can only decide if I want to be in that airplane when it explodes or if I want to be under a chute. Any potential legal consequence afterword is just uncontrollable at that point.
 
Most glider pilots wear chutes. Some two seat "older" gliders are not made for parachutes. Most newer two seat and almost all "modern" single seat gliders are designed to accomodate a parachute.

They are required during contests where many gliders could be in a gaggle in the same thermal. Mid-Air's between gliders have occured, dependent on the personal injury at impact, pilots have "bailed" to survive.

The most recent notable mid air is between a glider and a corporate jet near Reno.
The jet was damaged and deadsticked onto a runway. The glider wing spar was broken, into the radome of the corporate jet. The glider pilot bailed and survived.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
If a pilot bails out of a plane that does not have a chute, there in no telling where that plane will end up. It will be out of control and depending on where it goes down, property damage and bodily injury could be substantial.
Click to expand...

But if the airplane is damage beyond flyable condition.
The pilot is a live.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
If a pilot bails out of a plane that does not have a chute, there in no telling where that plane will end up. It will be out of control and depending on where it goes down, property damage and bodily injury could be substantial.
Click to expand...
I am missing how that would be different with a BRS?

Lets say the eggs hit the fry pan and the BRS level is pulled. Does the pilot have a responsibility to wait until the plane is over a safe area before doing so?

What if he can't and the only alternative is to crash at high rate of speed into a playground or pull the handle and crash at a lower rate. The difference being that maybe with the latter less people on the ground are killed and the pilot can walk away.

Now if a pilot purposely bails out to avoid, indictment, and could care less where his plane crashes, well that is a different ball of beans.
 
I'll let you think about that for awhile, Scott. If you can't see the difference between a plane coming down under a chute in relative control vs one that is pilotless, left to crash where it will, I can't help you.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
I'll let you think about that for awhile, Scott. If you can't see the difference between a plane coming down under a chute in relative control vs one that is pilotless, left to crash where it will, I can't help you.
Click to expand...
Well the point was for the smoking hole theory the pilot is not allowed to bail out because the plane could come down somewhere and do damage.

Greg Bockelman said:
If a pilot bails out of a plane that does not have a chute, there in no telling where that plane will end up. It will be out of control and depending on where it goes down, property damage and bodily injury could be substantial.
Click to expand...
But if he has the BRS and pull it, kills people, causes property damage then it is ok because the plane is slightly more controllable?

Yeah I don't get what your reasoning is there.

smigaldi said:
I would think that the situation would be as jesse stated above. If the airplane is that un-flyable you have nothing to fear from the bailout.
Click to expand...
What other choice do you have but to be a smoking hole?

smigaldi said:
My question is why would a person bailing out of a crippled aircraft be any different than if the aircraft had a BRS and the pilot pulled the chute on that?
Click to expand...
Both are out of control, both will cause some damage and maybe death. So from a regulatory standpoint there should be no difference. If all someone had was a parachute then that is what they should use, not ride the plane into the ground. That is the point.
 
smigaldi said:
Well the point was for the smoking hole theory the pilot is not allowed to bail out because the plane could come down somewhere and do damage.
Click to expand...

Don't know about the "not allowed to". I didn't see that in the OP. But then again, I haven't read EVERY post.

But if he has the BRS and pull it, kills people, causes property damage then it is ok because the plane is slightly more controllable?
Click to expand...

It will do a hell of a lot less damage and be a hell of a lot less dangerous to people on the ground that an unmanned airplane would. Can we at least agree on that?

What other choice do you have but to be a smoking hole?
Click to expand...

How many BRS deployments have resulted in a "smoking hole"?

Both are out of control, both will cause some damage and maybe death.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but AGAIN, coming down under a chute is a hell of a lot less "out of control" than an unmanned airplane is.

So from a regulatory standpoint there should be no difference. If all someone had was a parachute then that is what they should use, not ride the plane into the ground.
Click to expand...

You think so? So if someone has an engine failure, he should bail out if he has a chute and not ride it to the ground? I disagree on this point.

That is the point.
Click to expand...

I don't follow. Just what IS the point?
 
Greg Bockelman said:
I don't follow. Just what IS the point?
Click to expand...
I am starting to forget it as well. :D

But I think we were talking about an uncontrollable airplane. Not jumping out for frivolous reasons or at least ones where staying in control was the right thing to do.

I think the question is if you can and did bail out would you have violated a FAR?
 
Let's not forget, while we're talking about bailing out...
most of the planes that most of us fly would be very hard to get out of if necessary. For me to hit the silk, it'd take a flying surface coming off or control surface jamming in a deflected position, in which case things would get so ugly so fast it would just make egress that much harder.

Imagine getting out of a PA-28 in a flat spin with a parachute rig on... they'd probably find you in the wreckage laying across the right seat with your hand on the upper door latch and an "oh crap" look on your face. :D

Not much different with a high-wing, either, despite there being two doors. Your chances may improve slightly, but... there's a reason why Citabrias and Aerobats have quick-release doors! :D

That being said, though- if you can't control it, you can't control it.. it will go where it will, whether you're aboard or not... so if you can get out and use a 'chute, get the heck out!

But if you can descend with some control, even if you can't turn, I believe that most of the time it would be better for you- and folks on the ground- if you "fly it into the crash".
 
Last edited:
smigaldi said:
I am starting to forget it as well. :D
Click to expand...

Fair enough

But I think we were talking about an uncontrollable airplane.
Click to expand...

Ok, I sort of lost that in the noise.

I think the question is if you can and did bail out would you have violated a FAR?
Click to expand...

None that I have ever seen. :nonod: :smile:

Done? :D
 
rottydaddy said:
Let's not forget, while we're talking about bailing out...
most of the planes that most of us fly would be very hard to get out of if necessary. For me to hit the silk, it'd take a flying surface coming off or control surface jamming in a deflected position, in which case things would get so ugly so fast it would just make egress that much harder.

Imagine getting out of a PA-28 in a flat spin with a parachute rig on... they'd probably find you in the wreckage laying across the right seat with your hand on the upper door latch and an "oh crap" look on your face. :D

Not much different with a high-wing, either, despite there being two doors. Your chances may improve slightly, but... there's a reason why Citabrias and Aerobats have quick-release doors! :D

That being said, though- if you can't control it, you can't control it.. it will go where it will, whether you're aboard or not... so if you can get out and use a 'chute, get the heck out!

But if you can descend with some control, even if you can't turn, I believe that most of the time it would be better for you- and folks on the ground- if you "fly it into the crash".
Click to expand...

If you search the NTSB reports, you will find some cases where 'chute wearing pilots / passengers failed to get out of aircraft like a Pitts and ended up spinning into the ground. What those reports don't indicate is if they couldn't get out or just waited too long.

On the other hand, you will also find reports where people successfully opened the door and got out of low wing (at least one was suicide) and high wing aircraft in "straight and level" flight. I didn't find any reports where a pilot wearing a 'chute was or was not able to exit an aircraft that was out of control.

One case was a ('chute wearing) student pilot who ran out of gas on final, turned away from the airport and jumped.
Really. :loco:
However, I don't know what certificate action was taken in this case.

It's isn't clear that an aircraft descending under the BRS has ANY control at all - note: there was one case where a pilot used the engine to avoid landing in a tank farm, but that is contrary to the instructions in the POH.
 
One of my glider acquaintences bialed out of his Genesis 2, after he had a midair with another sailplane during a contest in TX. See the NTSB report below.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20080814X01240&ntsbno=DEN08LA137B&akey=2

It was interesting getting a first hand account of the thought process that happened during an actual bailout situation. In his case there was no question that he needed to get out (inverted spin without control), but he did try to figure out what was wrong first. Mike also told us that once he realized that he was in deep trouble, the drive to get out was pretty strong.

The thing he stressed was that if you do wear a chute go through the process of opening whatever emergency release mechanism you have, undo the belts, and do a "practice bailout" on the ground. This way you will have built up muscle memory in case of an actual emergency. Another thing to remember is that the average emergency chute will have a pretty good descent rate. It is likely that you will sprain or break something upon landing.

Allen Silver has some great info for users of Emergency Chutes on his web site
http://www.silverparachutes.com/articles.html
 
Pilots I have met that have bailed out...

Gary, Jumped out of a Formula one Racer he was testing when the elevator control tube broke. (Idaho)

Alex?(I think) jumped out of his glider after a mid air with another glider, (NW Washinton only a few years ago)

Jim, Jumped out of glider at 1000 ft agl after the elevator separated from the aircraft.

Wayne, Ejected from an Navy A3 when both engines caught fire.

JJ, (Black Ace) Ejected from an F4 and an F-111,

Here are some I know of but haven't met.

Citabria in UT, The back seat cushion fell behind the rear stick jamming it forward. The pilot bailed out.

Glider pilot bailed out of his A Ventus after the elevator seal lifted from the hinge line separating the airflow over the elevator and the elevator became ineffective.

F-16 Thunderbird pilot at the Mountain Home Airforce Base, I was there the day before and watched them practice but wasn't there the day he ejected.

UK, Glider pilot and Passenger successfully bailed out after the glider was hit by lightning

------------------------------------------------

There are probably more, these are the ones that just now came to mind. It might seem like there are a lot of glider bail outs, but that may have more to do with fact that glider pilots typically wear parachutes and also by the fact I tend to hang around with the glider pilots.
 
About the only situation I can think of where the FAA would be upset about you bailing out of a dying airplane is if you caused the problem yourself (e.g., deliberately performing aerobatics in a plane not certified for them, taking off or continuing a flight without what the FAA would consider enough fuel, etc). In addition, there's no telling what would happen in civil or even criminal court if your plane fell on a person or property in such as case. However, as long as the emergnecy was not one of your own making, there are plenty of exceptions in law to protect you.

BTW, as to that Thunderbird pilot, it was an emergency of his own making. He bailed out after topping his loop 1000 feet too low to complete the maneuver without hitting the ground. It was his last flight as a Thunderbird, and I don't know what else the USAF may have done to him.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
BTW, as to that Thunderbird pilot, it was an emergency of his own making. He bailed out after topping his loop 1000 feet too low to complete the maneuver without hitting the ground. It was his last flight as a Thunderbird, and I don't know what else the USAF may have done to him.
Click to expand...

Which post are you referring to?
 
I've seen videos of that F-16 crash (including cockpit video, which ends just after the pilot's feet go by) floating around the internet.
 
Ron Levy said:
I've seen videos of that F-16 crash (including cockpit video, which ends just after the pilot's feet go by) floating around the internet.
Click to expand...

This one?


wiki said:
  • September 14, 2003: 31-year-old Captain Chris Stricklin, flying Thunderbird 6 (opposing solo), failed to pull out of a dive but safely ejected at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho. Stricklin miscalculated the altitude required to complete his opening maneuver, a "Split S", and climbed to an inadequate altitude of 1670 feet above ground level (AGL), instead of 2500 feet, before initiating the pull-down dive of the maneuver. The accident occurred due to the difference in mean sea level (MSL) altitudes between Mountain Home and Nellis AFBs, approximately 1,100 feet. Stricklin ejected just 0.8 seconds before impact. His parachute deployed just above the ground and he sustained only minor injuries from the ejection. There were no injuries to spectators. As a result of the crash, Thunderbird pilots now call out AGL instead of MSL altitudes.[8]
Click to expand...


http://www.f-16.net/news_article968.html
McSpadden says Stricklin is an exceptional officer. "He is an extremely talented pilot. He came in here and made an honest mistake," says Lt. Col. McSpadden. But that mistake has cost Stricklin his prestigious spot on the Thunderbird team. "He's assigned to Washington D.C.," says McSpadden. "He's working in the Pentagon there in one of the agencies."

....

The board determined other factors substantially contributed to creating the opportunity for the error including the requirement to convert sea level altitude information from the F-16 instruments - to their altitude above ground and call out that information to a safety operator below.

But the Air Force has now changed that as a result of the crash. Thunderbird pilots will now call out the MSL (mean-sea-level) altitudes as opposed to the AGL (above-ground-level) altitudes.

Thunderbird pilots will now also climb an extra 1000 feet before performing the Split S Maneuver to prevent another mistake like the one on Sep.14, 2003 from happening again.

Captain Chris Stricklin has been in the Air Force since 1994 and flew with the Thunderbirds for the first season now. He has logged a total of 1,500+ flight hours and has received numerous awards. He served as a flight examiner, flight instructor and flight commander.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
McSpadden says Stricklin is an exceptional officer. "He is an extremely talented pilot. He came in here and made an honest mistake," says Lt. Col. McSpadden. But that mistake has cost Stricklin his prestigious spot on the Thunderbird team. "He's assigned to Washington D.C.," says McSpadden. "He's working in the Pentagon there in one of the agencies."
Click to expand...
It may not be a "one-mistake" Air Force, but the Thunderbirds are a "one-mistake" team. Wonder what part of "the Pentagon" he went to -- the office handling tropical survival equipment logistics for the Northern Tier SAC bases?
 
smigaldi said:
I am missing how that would be different with a BRS?
.... or pull the handle and crash at a lower rate.
Click to expand...

If you pull the handle and then turn off the engine, whats the keep you from opening the door, leaning out and yelling "Hey.. Get the F--- outta the way!! Plane coming down! "

People can hear you from several hundred feet up..

You are descending at a rate that will probably damage the structure but not always.. One plane landed in trees... and was cushioned enough that it was made airworthy again

I've yet to hear about a fatality on the ground from a successful BRS deployment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top