Is there generally a minimum altitude for ejecting in order for the sequence to function reliably (all the way to opening the chute, and slowing down to a survivable descent rate)? I've seen ejector seats test being done on the ground, don't know if there were actually test pilots in those seats though.
I assume all bets are off if you're not wings level (obviously a low-level inverted ejection has a 0% chance of success).
It depends on the ejection seat.
Modern zero-zero ejection seats are designed to be usable at zero speed, zero altitude.
Older ejection seats had different minimums which varied from model to model.
On a side note, the early F-104 ejection seats required quite a bit of altitude to deploy properly, since the pilot exited through the bottom of the aircraft. This was done because there was some concern that the pilot would hit the F-104's T-tail with a standard ejection seat.
It appears that it may actually be possible to eject from an inverted aircraft. According to Wikipedia (bold added for emphasis):
The minimal ejection altitude for ACES II seat in inverted flight is about 140 feet (43 m) above ground level at 150 KIAS. While the Russian counterpart - K-36DM has the minimal ejection altitude from inverted flight of 100 feet (30 m) AGL. When an aircraft is equipped with the Zvezda K-36DM ejection seat and the pilot is wearing the КО-15 protective gear, he is able to eject at airspeeds from 0 to 1,400 kilometres per hour (870 mph) and altitudes of 0 to 25 km (16 mi or about 82,000 ft). The K-36DM ejection seat features drag chutes and a small shield that rises between the pilot's legs to deflect air around the pilot.
Pilots have successfully ejected at negative altitudes in a handful of instances, after being forced to ditch in water.
Also: I once read, but cannot now locate, the citation awarded a pilot of the USAF for the world record lowest altitude successful (i.e. the pilot survived) emergency ejection from a stricken aircraft over land: sixteen feet below ground level. Apparently the young pilot was practicing with his T-33 single-engine trainer when the engine flamed out and could not be restarted. The pilot observed the flat desert below, crossed by several paved roads and highways. One road seemed to be completely clear of traffic, so he opted for a gear-down dead-stick landing on it, hoping to minimize damage to the aircraft. He discovered only after touchdown that the paved strip was not a road at all but a flash flood drainage ditch, wide enough for the fuselage but not the wings. The aircraft was seriously damaged and set on fire. The damage prevented the canopy from opening, so the pilot used the ejection seat to escape burning to death. He survived with minor burns, some compression damage to his spine, and two broken ankles.
Is there generally a minimum altitude for ejecting in order for the sequence to function reliably (all the way to opening the chute, and slowing down to a survivable descent rate)? I've seen ejector seats test being done on the ground, don't know if there were actually test pilots in those seats though. I assume all bets are off if you're not wings level (obviously a low-level inverted ejection has a 0% chance of success).
actually are (or, as most pilots prefer to think, you're lower than what your altimeter reads) Have a look at this VOR approach into Newark Most altitude restrictions are a minimum level, so...Non-precision instrument approaches generally have altitude restrictions which get lower when you get closer to the airport. I always figured these restrictions were AMSL using the current altimeter... ground level. Although I don't see any obstructions that high during this segment of the approach, as far as I know instrument approaches are supposed to guarantee a 500 ft obstacle clearance, do
As we all know from our instrument training, the MOCA is: MINIMUM OBSTRUCTION CLEARANCE ALTITUDE (MOCA)- The lowest published altitude in effect between radio fixes on VOR airways, off-airway... of a VOR. Whereas the MEA is: MINIMUM EN ROUTE IFR ALTITUDE (MEA)- The lowest published altitude between radio fixes which assures acceptable navigational signal coverage and meets obstacle clearance requirements between those fixes. The MEA prescribed for a Federal airway or segment thereof, area navigation low or high route, or other direct route applies to the entire width of the airway
). The airframe, seats and landing gear are all designed to absorb the impact energy. ...? What G forces are involved in the impact? I realize that there are lots of possible variables here, but let's assume that the parachute deploys correctly and in plenty of time for a stabilized descent; touchdown is in 'ideal' conditions, i.e. on level, unobstructed ground; and impact forces are as described in the Cirrus CAPS guide: The airplane will assume its touchdown attitude to optimize
If ATC gives me a clearance to cross a fix at a specific altitude or a descent at pilot's discretion and I read back the clearance, is my readback considered the report specified in the AIM, or do I have to inform them when I actually start down? AIM 5-3-3. Additional Reports a. The following reports should be made to ATC or FSS facilities without a specific ATC request: 1. At all times. (a) When vacating any previously assigned altitude or flight level for a newly assigned altitude or flight level. ... An Example - Say that a pilot is flying at flight level 340
can't compete with pilots willing to work for $17k/yr. For comparison, federal minimum wage is currently just over $15K/yr. Why are the starting salaries at US Regional Airlines so low? It seems odd... level of skill and education. Supply and demand is one explanation, but I really don't understand how there is so much competition for flying jobs but at the same time there is a supposed "pilot shortage". Are there really so many pilots out there that the competition for jobs drives down starting salaries so low? I am hoping to understand why it is that well-qualified pilots appear to have so
On SIGWX charts, it shows pairs of symbols with, say, */** or **/**. I know what the symbols mean on either side, but why are there two, and what does the slash indicate? Would love good resources that explain more, too. Example chart here, from the FAA sample questions (caution: 37 MB download), Figure 20, over Southern California. I’m also interested in knowing what a dot with R underneath means.
I know it's a bit odd, but I like using my TI-89 graphing calculator in addition to an E6B when doing calculations. It helps me avoid dumb arithmetic errors. I read the section "Use of Test Aids and Materials" of Recreational Pilot and Private Pilot Knowledge Test Guide (FAA-G_8082-17). It seems to meet all of the requirements except (d), which I don't really understand: The use of magnetic cards, magnetic tapes, modules, computer chips, or any other device upon which pre-written programs or information related to the test can be stored and retrieved is prohibited. Does anyone
In a full motion Level C or D simulator like those used by the airlines and for jet type ratings: How should a pilot log the simulator time in their logbook? I.e. Can you log: Total Time Instrument Time Time in Type Cross Country Time Night Time Landings (including night landings) Dual given/received Anything else?
Recently I was checking in to a flight and was asked if I'd like a window or aisle seat as usual and choose a window seat. I was then told that there are no more window seats available but I could get an aisle seat without someone sitting next to me and then just take that window seat. The plane was an ATR-72 so the rows were 2+2 seats. I know about weight distribution to the front/back but I couldn't come up for a good reason to do this. What could be the reason for not giving me that apparently free window seat right away?