Forum: General F-16 forum

This is a question that occured to me the other day. I never thought to ask it while I crewing and , obviously, this is the best place for info anyway.......so here goes. If the Koch fittings are designed to unlatch if the pilot goes down in the ocean then what makes them work if he goes down in a fresh water lake (the difference being the salinity of the water). And if SEAWARS works in fresh water also, what keeps them from activating if the pilot happens to get them very wet on the way to the plane. Maybe I should know this, but I don't, and I'm asking our wealth of information that we have out there.
check six
stik

F-16.net Sponsor

I'm not Kevin but I can answer your questions. SEWARS only works in salt water, not fresh. He doesnt wear them on the way to the airplane, they are mounted to the parachute risers on the seat. No provisions are made for them to unlatch in fresh water.

Thanks Mark, I was going to defer to you anyway. That is how I read all the references I have to them.

Some early versions were problematic for ready-5 crews on carriers where sea spray would set them off occasionally. They were modified to require a short submergence (2 seconds I believe) before they would go off to allow for sea spray or splashes. If you don't think a wave can get 60ft up onto a carrier deck, you haven't seen some of the photos I have...

Kevin
The Ejection Site

Actually there's was a change to the SEAWARS. Cuz yes its true the sewars will only unlatch in saltwater..once there immersed in it. The change they made to them now are there called UWARS. Wich will work in any kind of water. Salt or fresh.

UWARS still needs saltwater to activate......never understood why they call it the "universal" water activated release system.

mark wrote:

UWARS still needs saltwater to activate......never understood why they call it the "universal" water activated release system.

I was under the same impression as Viperwiper . I thought they did the change for the same reason. Kevin, I assume he is correct, could you explain why the change in equipment?

Last edited by mark on Jun 30, 2004 - 10:00 PM; edited 1 time in total

They switched as part of a TCTO. There is only 1 UWARS connector part number as opposed to the SEAWARS which had a left and a right. I am told they are more reliable than the SEAWARS and they have a BIT on them rather than a inshop test. After thinking about it.....I suppose that the "universal" is refering to the ability to be on several different applications. Here is a link that will describe the UWARS. http://www.conaxfl.com/uwars.htm I can get you a TO reference if need be, but the link is pretty descriptive.

Why don't they have it activate in fresh water then?

The biggest threat to pilot life from landing in water is a seawater enviroment. Most bodies of fresh water are relatively easy for pilots to disconnect from, the seawater ones on the other hand can be (and usually are) very inhospitable. We have lost a number of pilots in over seawater ejections because of the wind applying too much pressure on the buckles, which in turn made it not possible for them to get free from the chute. The chutes filled with water and pulled the pilots under causing them to drown. I guess they figured that since approx 75% of the earth's surface is sewater that made the choice logical. Doesnt mean however that I agree with their logic. Playing devils advocate, if it was truly operational around any body of water then the chance of a inadvertant actuation would be greatly increased.

Thanks to everyone for the info........once again F-16.net comes thru.
stik

kmceject wrote:

Thanks Mark. If you don't think a wave can get 60ft up onto a carrier deck, you haven't seen some of the photos I have...

Kevin
The Ejection Site

I've got a photo somewhere taken from Vultures Row (Halfway up the island) that shows the camara man looking up at a wave.

Just for the record......Mark never said anything about waves and carrier decks. LOL

Forum: General F-16 forum

SEAWARS question