Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 11:07 AM - Re: April 2010 Yak 50 Engine Failure in UK (Stu)
2. 11:37 AM - Re: Re: April 2010 Yak 50 Engine Failure in UK (Richard Goode)
3. 11:47 AM - Re: Re: April 2010 Yak 50 Engine Failure in UK (rick@rvairshows.com)
4. 01:44 PM - Re: Re: April 2010 Yak 50 Engine Failure in UK (Keith Pickford)
5. 02:08 PM - Re: April 2010 Yak 50 Engine Failure in UK (Stu)
6. 02:14 PM - Re: Re: April 2010 Yak 50 Engine Failure in UK (Mark Davis)
7. 02:51 PM - Re: Re: April 2010 Yak 50 Engine Failure in UK (Roger Kemp)
8. 02:53 PM - Re: Re: April 2010 Yak 50 Engine Failure in UK (Roger Kemp)
9. 02:55 PM - Re: Re: April 2010 Yak 50 Engine Failure in UK (Roger Kemp)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: April 2010 Yak 50 Engine Failure in UK |
A credit to the pilot for bringing his aircraft to the ground safely and walking
away from it. However, reflecting on this experience (and one of my own), the
pilot's decision to force land vs. bale out troubles me.
Traditionally (at least in the U.S.) we get a lot more training on how to force
land an aircraft than how to bale out of it. Whereas, in the USSR, DOSAAF students
were required to practice and demonstrate proficiency in Yak bale out
procedures. Yet the DOSAAF records have many accounts of injury and fatality
attributable to pilots' decisions to stay with their aircraft when there was no
apparent need to.
I suppose that pondering the decision for a split second too long could cost a
pilot his life. It seems to me that in most imaginable circumstances the decision
can be made beforehand...so as to avoid hesitation in the cockpit. For
my part, considering the relatively low value of a Yak or CJ (compared to life),
if it is clear that the engine will not restart and with enough altitude and
minimal threat to those on the ground, the policy is bale out now and pick
up the insurance check later.
Stu Nicholson
--------
Stewart Nicholson
Yak 52 N122GC
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=332517#332517
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: April 2010 Yak 50 Engine Failure in UK |
Yes,he was over the lake district in the north of England which is pretty
rough terrain.Initially,the engine continued to run [without any oil] so he
thought he could get to Carlisle airfield,but it then seized solid!!
Richard Goode
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Hereford
HR5 3LW
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
www.russianaeros.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stu
Sent: 02 March 2011 19:05
Subject: Yak-List: Re: April 2010 Yak 50 Engine Failure in UK
A credit to the pilot for bringing his aircraft to the ground safely and
walking away from it. However, reflecting on this experience (and one of my
own), the pilot's decision to force land vs. bale out troubles me.
Traditionally (at least in the U.S.) we get a lot more training on how to
force land an aircraft than how to bale out of it. Whereas, in the USSR,
DOSAAF students were required to practice and demonstrate proficiency in Yak
bale out procedures. Yet the DOSAAF records have many accounts of injury
and fatality attributable to pilots' decisions to stay with their aircraft
when there was no apparent need to.
I suppose that pondering the decision for a split second too long could cost
a pilot his life. It seems to me that in most imaginable circumstances the
decision can be made beforehand...so as to avoid hesitation in the cockpit.
For my part, considering the relatively low value of a Yak or CJ (compared
to life), if it is clear that the engine will not restart and with enough
altitude and minimal threat to those on the ground, the policy is bale out
now and pick up the insurance check later.
Stu Nicholson
--------
Stewart Nicholson
Yak 52 N122GC
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=332517#332517
-----------------------------------------------
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by the Invictawiz MailScanner
and is believed to be clean.
http://www.invictawiz.com
-----------------------------------------------
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: April 2010 Yak 50 Engine Failure in UK |
What do you think the fatality rate is for bail outs?
Rick VOLKER
------Original Message------
From: Stu
Sender: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
ReplyTo: yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: Yak-List: Re: April 2010 Yak 50 Engine Failure in UK
Sent: Mar 2, 2011 2:04 PM
A credit to the pilot for bringing his aircraft to the ground safely and walking
away from it. However, reflecting on this experience (and one of my own), the
pilot's decision to force land vs. bale out troubles me.
Traditionally (at least in the U.S.) we get a lot more training on how to force
land an aircraft than how to bale out of it. Whereas, in the USSR, DOSAAF students
were required to practice and demonstrate proficiency in Yak bale out
procedures. Yet the DOSAAF records have many accounts of injury and fatality
attributable to pilots' decisions to stay with their aircraft when there was no
apparent need to.
I suppose that pondering the decision for a split second too long could cost a
pilot his life. It seems to me that in most imaginable circumstances the decision
can be made beforehand...so as to avoid hesitation in the cockpit. For
my part, considering the relatively low value of a Yak or CJ (compared to life),
if it is clear that the engine will not restart and with enough altitude and
minimal threat to those on the ground, the policy is bale out now and pick
up the insurance check later.
Stu Nicholson
--------
Stewart Nicholson
Yak 52 N122GC
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=332517#332517
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: April 2010 Yak 50 Engine Failure in UK |
We don't have parachutes down under so the fatality rate from bale outs wou
ld be pretty high - I would stick with the plane
-
Regards
Keith
--- On Thu, 3/3/11, rick@rvairshows.com <rick@rvairshows.com> wrote:
From: rick@rvairshows.com <rick@rvairshows.com>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: April 2010 Yak 50 Engine Failure in UK
What do you think the fatality rate is for bail outs?
Rick VOLKER
------Original Message------
From: Stu
Sender: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
ReplyTo: yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: Yak-List: Re: April 2010 Yak 50 Engine Failure in UK
Sent: Mar 2, 2011 2:04 PM
A credit to the pilot for bringing his aircraft to the ground safely and wa
lking away from it.- However, reflecting on this experience (and one of m
y own), the pilot's decision to force land vs. bale out troubles me.-
Traditionally (at least in the U.S.) we get a lot more training on how to f
orce land an aircraft than how to bale out of it.- Whereas, in the USSR,
- DOSAAF students were required to practice and demonstrate proficiency i
n Yak bale out procedures.- Yet the DOSAAF records have many accounts of
injury and fatality attributable to pilots' decisions to stay with their ai
rcraft when there was no apparent need to.---
I suppose that pondering the decision for a split second too long could cos
t a pilot his life.- It seems to me that in most imaginable circumstances
the decision can be made beforehand...so as to avoid hesitation in the coc
kpit.---For my part, considering the relatively low value of a Yak or
CJ (compared to life), if it is clear that the engine will not restart and
with enough altitude and minimal threat to those on the ground,- the pol
icy is bale out now and pick up the insurance check later.
Stu Nicholson
--------
Stewart Nicholson
Yak 52 N122GC
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=332517#332517
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
le, List Admin.
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: April 2010 Yak 50 Engine Failure in UK |
Good question. Rich Stowell wrote an article published on Sport Aerobatics in
2001, that points to an answer. To net it out, there were 79 accidents in which
the occupant(s) were wearing chutes, they broke down as follows:
Bailout not attempted or incomplete (did not exit a/c): 2 non-fatal, 25 fatal
Bailout completed: 41 non-fatal, 9 fatal
Of the 9 completed bailouts that were fatal, 4 were attempted at too low an altitude,
1 person had a blood alcohol level of 0.10 and exited at 400 ft agl, 1
deployed the chute before exiting the a/c, 1 was not securely fastened into the
chute harness and 1 chute failed apparently due to deployment at too high a
speed.
So by these numbers, if you're wearing a chute in a disabled aircraft and you do
not attempt to bailout, your odds of survival are 2 non fatal / 27 total =
7%
If you're in the same situation and attempt to bailout of the aircraft, the odds
of survival are 41 non fatal / 50 total = 82%. But if you're sober, properly
buckled into the chute and pull the D-ring after exiting at a safe altitude
your odds improve to 49/50 = 98%.
--------
Stewart Nicholson
Yak 52 N122GC
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=332545#332545
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: April 2010 Yak 50 Engine Failure in UK |
Keith, it was the same with the U.S. Navy's A-3 Skywarriors. Most Whale
drivers agree that if they'd had ejection seats they wouldn't have
remained in service near as many years as they did because they would
have all been at the bottom of the ocean minus the seats!
Mark Davis
N44YK
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Pickford
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: April 2010 Yak 50 Engine Failure in UK
We don't have parachutes down under so the fatality rate from
bale outs would be pretty high - I would stick with the plane
Regards
Keith
--- On Thu, 3/3/11, rick@rvairshows.com <rick@rvairshows.com>
wrote:
From: rick@rvairshows.com <rick@rvairshows.com>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: April 2010 Yak 50 Engine Failure in
UK
To: "yak-list@matronics.com" <yak-list@matronics.com>
Date: Thursday, 3, March, 2011, 8:44 AM
What do you think the fatality rate is for bail outs?
Rick VOLKER
------Original Message------
From: Stu
Sender: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
To: yak-list@matronics.com
ReplyTo: yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: Yak-List: Re: April 2010 Yak 50 Engine Failure in UK
Sent: Mar 2, 2011 2:04 PM
<shnicholson@comcast.net>
A credit to the pilot for bringing his aircraft to the ground
safely and walking away from it. However, reflecting on this experience
(and one of my own), the pilot's decision to force land vs. bale out
troubles me.
Traditionally (at least in the U.S.) we get a lot more
training on how to force land an aircraft than how to bale out of it.
Whereas, in the USSR, DOSAAF students were required to practice and
demonstrate proficiency in Yak bale out procedures. Yet the DOSAAF
records have many accounts of injury and fatality attributable to
pilots' decisions to stay with their aircraft when there was no apparent
need to.
I suppose that pondering the decision for a split second too
long could cost a pilot his life. It seems to me that in most
imaginable circumstances the decision can be made beforehand...so as to
avoid hesitation in the cockpit. For my part, considering the
relatively low value of a Yak or CJ (compared to life), if it is clear
that the engine will not restart and with enough altitude and minimal
threat to those on the ground, the policy is bale out now and pick up
the insurance check later.
Stu Nicholson
--------
Stewart Nicholson
Yak 52 N122GC
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=332517#332517
Sent from my Ver Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to
f="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List"
target=_blank>http://ww/forums.matronics.com/"
target=_blank>http://forums.matronics.com
bsp; -->
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: April 2010 Yak 50 Engine Failure in UK |
Stu,
I share you feelings on that. The decision to bail out is made before you ever
step to the jet. That is how we were trained in the AF and I suppose the Navy
too. Obviously, the hardware is moving faster and is a little harder to land safely
off field. It has been done though. Still it recommended that you give the
aircraft back to the taxpayers vs. try to save an unsavable situation. That
does not mean that we have not saved jets by not using the ejection system, we
have. Have personal experience to prove it but it was a determination that was
made with a the luxury of altitude and at the time with a motor that was still
running although barely but enough to make thrusties. Put in a different situation
I would exit in a heartbeat unless out of the safe ejection envelope.
Does everybody know what that safe envelope is for the YAK as well as their parachutes?
Doc
-----Original Message-----
>From: Stu <shnicholson@comcast.net>
>Sent: Mar 2, 2011 1:04 PM
>To: yak-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Yak-List: Re: April 2010 Yak 50 Engine Failure in UK
>
>A credit to the pilot for bringing his aircraft to the ground safely and walking
away from it. However, reflecting on this experience (and one of my own),
the pilot's decision to force land vs. bale out troubles me.
>
>Traditionally (at least in the U.S.) we get a lot more training on how to force
land an aircraft than how to bale out of it. Whereas, in the USSR, DOSAAF
students were required to practice and demonstrate proficiency in Yak bale out
procedures. Yet the DOSAAF records have many accounts of injury and fatality
attributable to pilots' decisions to stay with their aircraft when there was
no apparent need to.
>
>I suppose that pondering the decision for a split second too long could cost a
pilot his life. It seems to me that in most imaginable circumstances the decision
can be made beforehand...so as to avoid hesitation in the cockpit. For
my part, considering the relatively low value of a Yak or CJ (compared to life),
if it is clear that the engine will not restart and with enough altitude and
minimal threat to those on the ground, the policy is bale out now and pick
up the insurance check later.
>
>Stu Nicholson
>
>--------
>Stewart Nicholson
>Yak 52 N122GC
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=332517#332517
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: April 2010 Yak 50 Engine Failure in UK |
Ah, that explains why you blokes have so many grease spots when your demo teams
jump at air shows. No chutes will do that! It's not the first step that gets
you but that last is a bitch!
Doc
-----Original Message-----
>From: Keith Pickford <kpickford@xtra.co.nz>
>Sent: Mar 2, 2011 3:41 PM
>To: yak-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: April 2010 Yak 50 Engine Failure in UK
>
>We don't have parachutes down under so the fatality rate from bale outs would
be pretty high - I would stick with the plane
>
>Regards
>Keith
>
>--- On Thu, 3/3/11, rick@rvairshows.com <rick@rvairshows.com> wrote:
>
>
>From: rick@rvairshows.com <rick@rvairshows.com>
>Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: April 2010 Yak 50 Engine Failure in UK
>To: "yak-list@matronics.com" <yak-list@matronics.com>
>Date: Thursday, 3, March, 2011, 8:44 AM
>
>
>
>What do you think the fatality rate is for bail outs?
>Rick VOLKER
>------Original Message------
>From: Stu
>Sender: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>To: yak-list@matronics.com
>ReplyTo: yak-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Yak-List: Re: April 2010 Yak 50 Engine Failure in UK
>Sent: Mar 2, 2011 2:04 PM
>
>
>A credit to the pilot for bringing his aircraft to the ground safely and walking
away from it. However, reflecting on this experience (and one of my own), the
pilot's decision to force land vs. bale out troubles me.
>
>Traditionally (at least in the U.S.) we get a lot more training on how to force
land an aircraft than how to bale out of it. Whereas, in the USSR, DOSAAF students
were required to practice and demonstrate proficiency in Yak bale out procedures.
Yet the DOSAAF records have many accounts of injury and fatality attributable
to pilots' decisions to stay with their aircraft when there was no
apparent need to.
>
>I suppose that pondering the decision for a split second too long could cost a
pilot his life. It seems to me that in most imaginable circumstances the decision
can be made beforehand...so as to avoid hesitation in the cockpit.For my
part, considering the relatively low value of a Yak or CJ (compared to life),
if it is clear that the engine will not restart and with enough altitude and minimal
threat to those on the ground, the policy is bale out now and pick up the
insurance check later.
>
>Stu Nicholson
>
>--------
>Stewart Nicholson
>Yak 52 N122GC
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=332517#332517
>
>
>Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
>
>le, List Admin.
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: April 2010 Yak 50 Engine Failure in UK |
Good feed back
Doc
-----Original Message-----
>From: Stu <shnicholson@comcast.net>
>Sent: Mar 2, 2011 4:04 PM
>To: yak-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Yak-List: Re: April 2010 Yak 50 Engine Failure in UK
>
>
>Good question. Rich Stowell wrote an article published on Sport Aerobatics in
2001, that points to an answer. To net it out, there were 79 accidents in which
the occupant(s) were wearing chutes, they broke down as follows:
>
>Bailout not attempted or incomplete (did not exit a/c): 2 non-fatal, 25 fatal
>Bailout completed: 41 non-fatal, 9 fatal
>
>Of the 9 completed bailouts that were fatal, 4 were attempted at too low an altitude,
1 person had a blood alcohol level of 0.10 and exited at 400 ft agl, 1
deployed the chute before exiting the a/c, 1 was not securely fastened into the
chute harness and 1 chute failed apparently due to deployment at too high a
speed.
>
>So by these numbers, if you're wearing a chute in a disabled aircraft and you
do not attempt to bailout, your odds of survival are 2 non fatal / 27 total =
7%
>
>If you're in the same situation and attempt to bailout of the aircraft, the odds
of survival are 41 non fatal / 50 total = 82%. But if you're sober, properly
buckled into the chute and pull the D-ring after exiting at a safe altitude
your odds improve to 49/50 = 98%.
>
>--------
>Stewart Nicholson
>Yak 52 N122GC
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=332545#332545
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|