The F-35’s Martin-Baker Ejection Seat

...
• 1994 - Congress directed that the JPATS would accommodate 95% of female military population.

• This translates to a 58” Standing Height and 31” Sitting Height minimum

Well if all it takes is an Act of Congress, I vote we open it up to 7 foot 2 inches and 350 pounds ....

(For the sake of USAF Academy collegiate Football and Basketball players. Go Falcons! )

BP

4ft 10in = 58 inches - a shortarse in any language - congressional or otherwise.

That's one of the dumbest mandates, yet. Meet the standard, or do something else. It's maddening to think of the countless millions of dollars/delays involved, to modify/certify ejection seats for at most a handful of individuals. Keep the standard of 136+lb and save the money for more pressing priorities.

Vintage Fighters Put Ejection Seats To the Test
20 Jun 2017 Chris Pocock

"The ejection seats made by Martin-Baker may be thoroughly modern, but they are flight-tested in two of the oldest military jets still flying. The British company keeps two Gloster Meteors airworthy at its own airfield, Chalgrove, which is not far from the seat production factory at Denham, west of London....

...The pair kept there today have both served the company for over 50 years, and are good for many more years of service. One of them – black-painted WA638 – has used only half of its fatigue life. Before entering service with the company, both of them received structural reinforcements to carry the ejection loads.

The ejection seats to be fired, along with the test dummies, are installed in the rear cockpits. Both of these aircraft were built as tandem-seat trainers designated T.7. But they are unofficially described as Mk 7 ½ because they were fitted with larger tails from the Meteor F.8 version. The reason for that, explains Martin-Baker pilot Andy Gent, was the potential for complete loss of elevator control on the T.7 and its predecessor versions if pilots forgot to retract the speed brakes before lowering the flaps and landing gear. Gent is a former Royal Air Force Tornado and Hawk pilot who later flew airliners, and airshow aerobatics.

Last year, the two Meteors flew about 25 hours. Since actual test flights usually last only some 20 minutes, the remaining time is clocked on ferry flights, since Chalgrove is no longer used for firings. In 2016, Martin-Baker made four more test ejections of the US16E seat for the F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter seat, flying from Cazaux airbase in France, at altitudes from 15,000 feet to 27,000 feet. The company has now satisfied the US Air Force that the head and neck injury risk to lightweight pilots if they eject in the US16E has been addressed by two modifications, plus a reduction in the weight of the F-35 pilot helmet...."

Source: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... seats-test

This 'complex' article seems to be just raking over old news already explained by Bogdan that the risk has been accepted.

I like quotes lifted by 'SWP' on SNIFOO comments: (pretty well sums it up so deal with it naysayers - ejection DANGER)

"SpudmanWP "unless the upgraded ejection seats undergo additional testing to show they work in “off-nominal” cases — in other words, when the plane is out of control, not just in optimal flight conditions,"

How the heck do you test "off-normal" in a rocket sled test as they only go straight & fast? btw, you missed this part:

"The danger discussed in the Air Force documents is “the risk associated with lack of validated analyses, not that the F-35A ejection seat is unsafe,” he said.
Likewise, Ann Stefanek, an Air Force spokeswoman, said the service “has accepted risk of similar magnitude on previous ejection seats.”"

Safety Experts: Some F-35 Ejections Pose ‘Serious’ Death Risk [LONG COMPLEX ARTICLE - READ at SOURCE]
18 Sep 2017 John M. Donnelly

"The F-35 fighter jets’ flawed ejection seats, which Air Force officials said in May had been fixed, still pose a “serious” risk that will probably injure or kill nearly two dozen pilots, according to an internal Air Force safety report that service officials withheld from the press....

...Twenty-two pilots will be injured or killed in the coming decades, unless the upgraded ejection seats undergo additional testing to show they work in “off-nominal” cases — in other words, when the plane is out of control, not just in optimal flight conditions, said the May 1 report on “F-35-A Residual Risk Acceptance,” obtained by CQ Roll Call.

Such cases would be rare — perhaps 2 percent of ejections, by one estimate. But the results could be “catastrophic” for the pilots, the report said. For “no less than $1 million” worth of tests taking “nine to 12 months,” the result could be “no additional losses” of pilots, the report said. But the program office “non-concurs” with the recommended testing, the report said....

...Another concern of Pentagon testing officials — one that has gotten less attention than the ejection seat — is the F-35’s polymer cockpit canopy, which lifts and shatters by design before the ejection seat is released. The worry is that the canopy’s “fragments may hit the pilot during the ejection sequence,” Cabiness said, especially if the plane is out of control. The canopy system, too, has not been sufficiently tested to see how it will perform when the plane is out of control, the testing office has argued....

...A question of odds
Joe DellaVedova, a spokesman for the Joint Program Office, told CQ Roll Call the F-35’s ejection seats are no riskier than others and the potential dangers might occur in only rare instances. And he maintained that the more thorough tests called for by the Air Force safety experts are not cost-effective.

The danger discussed in the Air Force documents is “the risk associated with lack of validated analyses, not that the F-35A ejection seat is unsafe,” he said. Likewise, Ann Stefanek, an Air Force spokeswoman, said the service “has accepted risk of similar magnitude on previous ejection seats.”...

...The Air Force and Joint Program Office spokesmen also argued that ejecting from a fighter is inherently risky....

...The risks are considered serious, the report said, because only component testing and computer modeling has been done to assess if the fixes work when the planes are out of control. Without new, more realistic tests of the reconfigured seats, the “predicted loss” is “22 pilots with minor/major/fatal injuries over the life of the fleet,” which is about 50 years — meaning an injury or death roughly every couple of years....

...New F-35s will have the somewhat improved seats, but all but four of the 235 jets that pilots are flying today have yet to be modified, according to program office figures."

Source: http://www.rollcall.com/news//safety-ex ... eath-risk/

Martin Baker opens regional Williamtown hub
21 Sep 2017 ADM

"Manufacturer of ejection seats Martin-Baker has opened an Australian field office at Williamtown as part of its commitment to supporting the F-35 in the Asia Pacific region. The growth of the global F-35 fleet and the deployment of US Marine Corps F-35Bs to Iwakuni in Japan have dictated the need for a third location capable of supporting the aircraft. Until now two Martin Baker locations in Denham in the UK and Johnstown in the US have met the demand for ejection seat support.

Martin Baker spokesperson Andrew Martin said this had been part of the plan since the first day of the program with the company having realised it would need an extra capability for Maintenance, Repair, Overhaul and Upgrade of not just the US16E seat fitted to JSF, but all the support equipment associated with it...."

Photo: "A Martin Baker ejection seat being tested for the F-35. Credit: Martin Baker" http://yaffa-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com/adm/i ... 20Shot.jpg

Source: http://www.australiandefence.com.au/new ... amtown-hub

Martin Baker opens regional Williamtown hub
21 Sep 2017 ADM

"Manufacturer of ejection seats Martin-Baker has opened an Australian field office at Williamtown as part of its commitment to supporting the F-35 in the Asia Pacific region. The growth of the global F-35 fleet and the deployment of US Marine Corps F-35Bs to Iwakuni in Japan have dictated the need for a third location capable of supporting the aircraft. Until now two Martin Baker locations in Denham in the UK and Johnstown in the US have met the demand for ejection seat support.

Martin Baker spokesperson Andrew Martin said this had been part of the plan since the first day of the program with the company having realised it would need an extra capability for Maintenance, Repair, Overhaul and Upgrade of not just the US16E seat fitted to JSF, but all the support equipment associated with it...."

Photo: "A Martin Baker ejection seat being tested for the F-35. Credit: Martin Baker" http://yaffa-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com/adm/i ... 20Shot.jpg

Congrats to RAAF Willamstown F-35 Base program



Source: http://www.australiandefence.com.au/new ... amtown-hub

From: http://aviationweek.com/air-combat-safe ... es-1529941

Meteoric Tests
“The testing of Martin-Baker’s ejection seats falls to two of the earliest jet aircraft still in operational use. A pair of Gloster Meteor Mk.7s one built in 1949, the other from 1952 are used in the ejection seat trials for the most modern fighter types including the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. It is the Meteor’s wing-mounted twin-engine configuration with air intakes ahead of the rear test cockpit that makes it so-suitable for ejection seat testing, as the engines are not impacted by debris or hot air resulting from the ejection seat launch. Here the JSF’s Mk.16 seat is launched from the back from Meteor WA638 during testing in France, where many of the higher altitude testing is performed. Photo: Martin-Baker”

Photo: http://aviationweek.com/site-files/avia ... Eject6.jpg

I admit that I haven't been following the "issues" (please note the quotes) around the F-35 ejection seat, so I take this chance to ask:
- Is the F-35 ejection seat already able to safely eject Dwarfs, Leprechauns, Apes and skinny top models??

Thanks in advance...

There is a weight range that is better than any other ejection seat in use at moment. Info in this thread of course but you knew that so I have to search thread for it? Oh well.... searching on WEIGHT + RANGE = viewtopic.php?f=60&t=27447&p=306681&hilit=weight+range#p306681

"...Safe Escape: The F-35 escape system was designed to provide safe escape for the widest range of both aircrew weight (103 to 245 pounds) and anthropometry (sizes), well beyond current legacy fighters...." http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS25/ ... 151021.pdf (100Kb)

Hi spazsinbad,

Well I should have rephrased my previous post. I guess that I should have asked if all three improvement (reduced weight helmet, pilot “weight switch” on the ejection seat and head support) have already been implemented?
I just couldn't resist the joke about Dwarfs, Leprechauns, etc...

I posted a reply and my internet connection rejected it - who said they live in Guantanimo - can we swap. Meanwhile....

Be patient grasshopper: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... rasshopper A recent report said only a few seats were modified with many to go soon enough - do I have to look that up - and nothing happens overnight does it.

So the new lightweight helmets have to be manufactured and delivered and fitted if need be. Seat modifications take a day or so IIRC. Do I need to look that up or does snapping my figures and saying MAKE IT SO! suit? This was always a tea in a stormcup which applied to perhaps ONE potential pilot who went on to other things but as pointed out by others different nationalities have different weight / height criteria etc - but the problem is FIXED Ffsake.

103 pounds... thats 46 kg!!!
I guess a really, really tiny, skinny woman might fit the bill. How are their necks not snapped in an ejection with any helmet... what even a F-35 one. M-B must have done a splendid job with their ejection seat!

Oh come on. There is a graphic showing the height / weight limits. There are all kinds of people on this planet (of apes).

viewtopic.php?f=60&t=27447&p=303408&hilit=guidance#p303408

On page 1 of this thread there is this illustration at above URL: download/file.php?id=21675

Bah, with 103 pounds lower limit it still cannot safely eject Leprechauns! I guess that this means that the F-35 cannot be exported to Ireland

Now seriously, thanks for the heads up spazsinbad