Mig23 Ejection Part 2

Mig23 Ejection Part 2, the rest of the interview
FlyWire Store:
flywire-store....
Patreon FlyWire:
/ flywire
FlyWire is about exploring flight and the freedom this incredible experience brings us on a personal level. Flying has always captured the imagination and excitement of living life to its fullest. Hi, I'm Scott Perdue. In a former life I flew the F-4 and F-15E, more recently I retired from a major airline. I've written for several aviation magazines over the years, was a consultant for RAND, the USAF, Navy, NASA as well as few others, wrote a military thriller- 'Pale Moon Rising' (still on Kindle). But mostly I like flying, or teaching flying. Some of the most fun I had was with Tom Gresham on a TV show called 'Wings to Adventure". We flew lots of different airplanes all over the country. Now with FlyWire I want to showcase the fun in flying, share the joy and freedom of flight and explore the world with you. Make sure you subscribe if you want to go along for the ride!
#Pilot #Fly #Flying #Fly yourself #aviation #FlyingTraining #LearntoFly #adventure #military aviation #aviationhistory
Website: www.flywire.on...
Merch Links: flywire-store....
My Book: Pale Moon Rising tinyurl.com/5a...
Twitter: @FlyWireO / flywire.online
Facebook: / flywireonline

[@johnkolmos1593]

I wonder what the conversation would be if 30 people died in those apartments...

[@pattyhaley9594]

Excuses , like with is one I am concluding. I thought pilots, truly professional and self aware ones anyway, are always to take responsibility for how they contributed to a situation and no matter how small. That’s the way to learn from events like this one.

[@Qrail]

Thanks Scott, for the additional information and conclusion of the interview.

[@craig7350]

Sounds like that F-35 pilot that ejected recently got out early enough, that they can't even find the plane.

[@jimw1615]

You keep presenting one side to this story in the context that it was equivalent to a military mission and that it is valid to eject from a civilian, experimental aircraft over a densely populated area rather than fly it to a crash in a safe area. You may want to consider getting the context of this crash story aligned with circumstances in which it occurred. I believe this pilot and passenger of this MiG 23 are not responsible for saving their own lives over those on the ground.

[@annsheridan12]

Easy for you to say

[@dryan8377]

strange how you worded it. I had to read it several times. But I agree. Damn. Well maybe not.

[@jimw1615]

@@dryan8377 That's funny Dryan. It would be a different "game" if the FAA mandated all former military aircraft that are flown privately under the "experimental" category to have their ejection seats permanently rendered inoperative. There most likely would be fewer flying.

[@andremichau2455]

Exactly

[@annsheridan12]

@@jimw1615 LOL!

[@michaelgill7248]

Thanks Scott. This was actually brave of you to put this video out. I'm sure you knew it would bring out all the brave super-hero second guessers as is now popular on social media involving aircraft accidents. One thing is clear, it seems this back seater was not jut a joy rider but was well versed in the proper ejection procedures. Maybe he was wrong or maybe he was right. Fact is they both lived and nobody was killed. And you have the proven chops as an ex-F15, airline pilot, as well as GA pilot of warbirds to be able to offer this. Few others could have.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Thanks Michael!

[@user-mp9rd4hg8b]

Mr. "well-versed" doesn't even remember pulling the handles (according to him) and he didn't even tell the guy flying the plane he was going to do it (according to the pilot). How can that be? A person doesn't have to be a Top Gun pilot to know there is something wrong here. The fact that no civilians were hurt comes down to dumb luck, which should not give anyone a good feeling.

[@m118lr]

I think the most common theme, or comment that I’ve seen on ALL channels covering this “accident”..have to do with the SURPRISE factor that Mark’s even “talking this soon..or THIS early AFTER the Mig 23 ejection”. I share that sentiment..

[@andremichau2455]

I agree.

[@dcxplant]

Pretty spicy accident! Has the aviation sewing circle all a 'twitter. This is getting as good as Formula 1 drama.

[@flyonbyya]

My brother was WSO in an F4 from ‘73-‘78. Can’t remember how many guys they lost in accidents when he was stationed in W Germany. My dad was a radio operator aboard the B17 and miraculously survived 35 missions.

[@m118lr]

..MY brother also was a WSO in the Phantom. Can’t recall his years actively flying exactly, I do know he flew early-on then rose through the ranks, retiring atfter 26 years as Lt. Col.

[@chuckcampbell3927]

🛫📖🛬 Scott, I cannot believe the controversy around this particular event. Whether it's right or wrong to allow these aircraft to fly as experimental class has nothing to do with the reality that any non experimental aircraft could have suffered the same consequences exactly like these guys experienced. Why, we dare death every time we get into a vehicle and start down the highway. Yes, I agree that you should make every effort to guide that aircraft away from the population beneath, however, when the altitude is gone and the airspeed is gone you have played your final card. But in this case there was an ejection handle. Some people are intimating that if you're flying one of these aircraft you should snuff it at all cost but I say you need to be in the seat and have the same purview these guys had. Way to go Scott, good review. Your past experience is priceless and ads much wealth to any revelation to be had from this event and the experiences that you also had.

[@edhawkins1]

He had less than 1 min to decide. He sure talked like he had minutes to decide. His life ahead of others

[@dryan8377]

not defending him. It was more like a few seconds... just a couple at that. something is just pissing me off about him parading his ass on video with his story. This is weird to me. I dunno. I am suffering from brain damage myself.

[@beachbum77979]

I've been in situations where I had to make a decision NOW! Sometimes, after an incident, it's really good to be able to explain. Sometimes better to ask for forgiveness later than permission in the moment.

[@andremichau2455]

He should be talking to a friend, privately. This public defensive explaining he's doing looks more and more like he's trying to get in front of what may have been a mistake.

[@pdevonport7266]

It's funny how some expert opinion is that the pilot has the only say when to eject, yet Scott has the opposite opinion, which of course he is highly qualified. It's obvious 11 tons of metal falling out of the sky there was only seconds from life or death for each pilot so the question really is are you prepared to fly the plane into the ground to prevent more fatalities and that's the thing no expert can tell you.

[@On-Our-Radar-24News]

In my humble opinion Scott, I think Mark is way over his ski's on this one. To come out so early after the accident and start making assumptions and statements about what was happening in the cockpit before the investigation is complete is premature and of bad form. It almost seems like Mark is trying to get out in front of an issue and I'm uncomfortable with him doing this interview without Dave, the aircraft owner. They were a crew and supposedly made the decision to eject as a crew or as Mark tells it, he ejected them from the airplane. I just think he should have waited until the investigation is complete. There are a lot of issues on the table besides Mark's statement on what he think happened.

[@josephroberts6865]

Scott, your interview with the back seater on this and part 1 was very interesting to me. I think the points both of you made were excellent and I understand and agree with the ejection. I’ve listened to Dan Gryder’s position but it’s difficult to accept his view of the back seater’s decision to eject. I do believe a thorough crew brief on what to do, when to do, where to do is most important. I also believe airshow authorities must develop the airspace to try and avoid populated areas. But I believe 2 more seconds and both pilots would be dead because I don’t think their parachutes would have had time to inflate.

[@stanislavkostarnov2157]

I think this interview shows in great detail, that in the split second, public safety or the cost of his actions in unreplaceable lives did not enter his mind in any way... whether it is safe to have such a person fly a jet... that is a question.... certainly, in the country in which this jet was designed he would have been in Jail rather than giving interviews (probably would get 1 or 2 years behind bars)... but that is sort of rather pushing it the other way...

[@pattyhaley9594]

One extreme or the other.

[@parkburrets4054]

Scott, Astronaut story Musgrave flew a T 38 back to a safe landing with two engines on fire. Apparently the policy is to eject once you have two engines on fire. I would love to see you two in a discussion about decision making.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Yeah, I'd like to talk to him about that one.

[@tylerdurden2644]

You flew in it knowing the risks. Those on the ground had no choice. There is honor then there is cowardice. The fact Perdue is running block to be first says a lot.

[@JanitorIsBack]

love when Gonky and Mover tear this interview apart (edit: by tear I probably should have said dissect. They added some really good questions that I would have hoped would have been asked in this part 2, understanding this was recorded before their discussion)

[@recoilrob324]

There's not much they can say about this....just as their comments on the first interview. They weren't there, given the same situation they'd have done the same thing and I don't remember them coming to any different conclusion than what happened. The PIC can and often does get saturated trying to fly the crippled aircraft and having another brain evaluating the situation and making the decision to get out looks like it was a life saver for both of them. Being the owner no doubt adds to the 'trying to save it' mentality but in this case....I think things went as well as they could have under the circumstances.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Single seat guys know everything about crewed fighters. Just listen to them, they’ll tell you all about it.

[@tomwilson1006]

They don’t really tear it apart or criticize these guys. They just have an opinion like everyone else is entitled to. They’re glad nobody got hurt or worse. People need to stop thinking that every other pilot out there is attacking these guys, when that’s just not true. Are there some that are critical? Sure, but I think we all know who those people are. Nobody’s really knocking these guys for wanting to save their own lives. The lucky stars were in alignment that day. There isn’t one person that knows the facts, the investigation literally just started, and until it’s concluded, nobody can say exactly what went wrong. It’s premature and all speculation at this point. Yes, they were almost out of the envelope yet they’re both alive. No sense in Monday morning quarterbacking. People ARE going to have opinions, but until ALL the facts come out, people can speculate all they want.

[@markcoveryourassets]

​@tomwilson1006 I agree. Of all the analysis guys I watch, Scott is the one I prefer. He withholds judgment the most compared to the analysts I have observed. I really like him as well and would value his friendship and mentorship. More time is needed for PIC "Files" Filer to tell the front seat perspective. I agree with "two-seater" Ward Carroll's perspective that "the first one to the whiteboard" controls the message. After an incident like this, I myself would not be getting ahead of the PIC unless I was worried I had scr-w-d the pooch or PIC was blaming or disparaging me publicly. Then I'd lawyer up and let them decide my PR campaign, not go cowboying. I know Scott's intentions are good. We are nowhere near understanding what happened.

[@LTVoyager]

I disagree that they tore it apart. I think they asked some very good questions and expressed some of the same questions I had. There is something fishy about this story and the fact that the backseater is on a PR crusade before the investigation has hardly begun. That is a sign of knowing he did something wrong and trying to get the propaganda ahead of the facts - sort of like how politicians work. I want to hear the actual pilots story and the NTSB results before making a final judgement, however.

[@cturdo]

Finally an intelligent analysis from a first-hand source. Great job, sir!

[@deansawich6250]

Thanks. Great interview.

[@tareqibnziyad4732]

Love your videos, thank you very much.

[@andremichau2455]

So much talk. What we need are ALL the facts, data, voice recording, everything. THEN we can talk.

[@gregoryspicer1555]

We need to back up and ask if the mission was worth the (very high) risk to the public. We are not at war. This was solely for entertainment. My daughter, son-in-law, and two grandkids live just a couple of miles from the crash site. And they didn't have tickets to the show. I'm pilot and not happy about this.

[@slartybarfastb3648]

The air show pilots, organizers and aircraft owners need to do much, much, MUCH better. I love airshows from my earliest memories on, but the cavalier, unprofessional operation of them for decades now are horrible.

[@briankeeley6464]

Nailed it. This is not really about pilot's ejecting from an out of control plane. It's about the risks involved in flying certain aircraft, for entertainment, in certain locations. An old, single engine, foreign made fighter is perhaps not suitable for low speed, low altitude flights over populated areas. Out in the desert, sure! Air show completely over water, sure! Flight path over my kids school, please no. We need to do some tweaking of the air show rules about this.

[@SeligTiles]

He needs to stop talking. Just stop.

[@Wargasm54]

It’s a free country. If he ends up screwing himself, so be it.

[@jhagz77]

I'd like to see Dan Gryder interview him next

[@theraptorsnest5891]

This was an interesting series. Lots of questions come up and I wonder about giving an interview this early in an investigation. That alone seems like he is trying to get ahead of something before the investigation comes out.

[@leroycharles9751]

That is what Alec Baldwin did.

[@mickjorgo]

“Owner Bias” - a new term to me however I’ve come across it many times when discussing parachutes or ejection from civilian aircraft. Owners have said “my aircraft is too expensive to abandon” and “I can recover from any emergency situation”… so far.

[@karlscribner3838]

I had wondered if that state of mind had influenced the pilot/owner if even slightly vs if it's "the taxpayers'" aircraft it's easier to exit.

[@roberthevern6169]

Thanks, Scott!!

[@Saltlick11]

After watching this interview and then also listening to others I am now uncertain about all of it. I'd really like to hear input from the pilot in command. I find it a bit suspicious that he's not talking and the back seater is...but, let's see how it plays out.

[@annsheridan12]

Was a restart possible at that altitude and airspeed? NO! Was a return to the airport possible? NO! From how low the pilot’s chute opened the decision was eject in the next second or two or die.

[@dryan8377]

I agree. This is a tough one to judge. I just don't like how he parades his ass on video like he's some kind of hero of not dying.

[@Saltlick11]

@@semiautoomnibus agreed. Both should stay quiet imo.

[@annsheridan12]

@@dryan8377 hero? He is merely recounting the flight and ejection.

[@johncox4273]

@@dryan8377I didn’t get that vibe at all from Mark. Just stating the facts as he remembers them. I’m also curious to hear from the pilot, but I imagine his lawyers have him being quiet.

[@MikePetro216]

I lived a couple of miles due north of Wiillow Run Airport and attended the Thunder Over Michigan airshow many times. The aircraft in the show overflew my neighborhood. To eject from that MIG 23 with no idea of where it was going to crash and the possibility of killing innocent people on the ground was without regard for human life. It was just dumb stupid luck no one died because Mark was only thinking of his own ass.

[@terrancestodolka4829]

Wow, the workings of the ejection seats....

[@sandhill9313]

Thanks

[@joelobryan1212]

Probably FW-SP's best two YT vids series. 👍

[@nancychace8619]

Thanks for sharing. Very good discussion. When you talk about decision points needing to be figured out on the ground it's about pre-planning, right? Or planning ahead so you have your proverbial ducks in a row when you get in the air? Good metaphor for life. Enjoyed the discussion in the first part. One interesting thing is how are good decisions made. Not everyone is so adept at making a fast decision, and sometimes snap decisions can work in reverse when they are made too quickly. There's a balance. Enjoyed your discussion.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Thanks Nancy, and that is precisely why the decision point should be made on the ground.

[@neilmurgatroyd3197]

Thankyou, 2 great videos I see there's lots of noise on the issue, some informed, lots of it uninformed. (Lots of it copying your content for themselves, that's not right?!!!!) You've given a clear reasoned analysis of the events and decisions. There may be other views on how well this display event was planned, executed and deemed safe. But you've been unbiased, clinical and analytical, imo, thanks for that.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Thanks Neil!

[@ionhunter]

Having seen some of the wreckage firsthand, that bird had maintenance issues. He is lucky to be alive!

[@JonCox-fn3hn]

How can you tell it had maintenance issue's by looking at the wreckage first hand????

[@annsheridan12]

@@JonCox-fn3hn only on fantasy island

[@ionhunter]

@@JonCox-fn3hn With my eyes.

[@andremichau2455]

Hahahaha 😂

[@JonCox-fn3hn]

You must work for the FAA or NTSB with those super powers! We can just start sending pics of crashed airplanes and you can tell us what happened and their perspective maintenance issues just by looking at the wreckage! What talent!

[@theejectionsite1038]

Scott- the STAPAC on the ACES II is different than you described in some ways. The MiniPAC seat (a lightweight seat designed for trainers but never fielded) used a rod attached to the cockpit. On the ACES II there is a gas generator that retracts a serrated pinion rod to spin up the gyro. It only stabilizes the seat in pitch to prevent the seat from tumbling.

[@adrianmaree8352]

I've seen that there has been a lot of criticism aimed at Mark for ejecting and saving their lives as opposed to flying the aircraft away from structures to save lives on the ground. But since the aircraft was not producing thrust, was it even possible to control the aircraft and fly it to an open area?

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

At the point the ejection occurred the answer to your question is NO it was not possible.

[@bobcfi1306]

There is a lot of thought needed to consider the risk associated with operating these aircraft over civilian populations

[@richardseton7014]

No more and no less than operating any other aircraft.

[@FutureSystem738]

@@richardseton7014Wrong. This was an old, very complex, single engine “high tech” warbird. It’s obvious that if people are going to just “bang out” therefore leaving where it will crash to pure dumb luck, then they should be banned over built up areas, and especially low flight.

[@2Phast4Rocket]

I remembered the F117 that crashed in the civilian neighborhood after the pilot ejected. That pilot had to eject and he ejected. You cannot control an already out of control airplane

[@andrewagner2035]

@@richardseton7014Actually even more so in these cases. This was an old complicated aircraft, with an ejection seat!

[@timmholzhauer3342]

@@2Phast4RocketThis aircraft was not out of control!! The engine was out, the aircraft could be steered to an open field (if available).

[@badsanta69]

Oh boy. Here we go! Still think he made the right call to eject.

[@annsheridan12]

Better than dead. 🙀

[@andremichau2455]

Maybe, maybe not. We need the ntsb report in order to decide.

[@annsheridan12]

@@andremichau2455 can’t think for yourself?

[@gtr1952]

This was really interesting, and I thought about it a lot. I kept coming back to the 'ultimate option'. When private pilots fly HP jets, is there a 'Hippocratic Oath'? I'm really happy they both got out, and he was here to talk about it. On the other hand, they left, sending an unguided "bomb" of sorts, into a densely populated area. I assume this was the "other" you were talking about. It was truly a miracle that it cleared everything, didn't hurt/kill anyone, and did almost no damage. He could not have planned that, he was not in the aircraft. I tried to honestly think what I would do. I don't know. I want to say I'd have flown it to the crash site, to insure the best possible outcome. But I'm not sure. What is your take on this Scott?? Thanks!! --gary

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Gary, my take is they had a choice early in the event when they had some altitude and airspeed. The decision tree had to be decided on on the ground. When they came to the decision point with the engine rollback and no thrust. At that point they could have pointed the jet towards the lake they were going to overfly and eject in a more controlled fashion. If you had stayed with the airplane you might have been able to affect its path to the left or right maybe a 100'. Or you might have stalled it and departed into the apartments. Kamikaze is not a viable option.

[@TheBullethead]

OK, you've made a strong case for the crew punching out when they did and why. Due to their situation and the seat parameters, it was either then or never. So they're alive but it's only due to sheer luck that nobody on the ground got hurt by the abandoned plane going where sheer chance chose to take it. So yeah, all good explanations of the decision to eject for self-preservation but where is the sense of duty to prevent harm to innocent bystanders by absolutely ensuring that the plane can't hit any of them? Nobody on the ground chose to fly a MiG-23. Nobody on the ground actively consented to having a MiG-23 fly over their neighborhood at such a low altitude that, should it suffer an engine failure, the crew would save themselves and let the plane fall where it may. And because nobody on the ground expressly accepted the risk of having an abandoned M|iG-23 fall on them, IMHO the burden is on the crew to make sure the plane falls on nobody. Even if that means they have no chance of survival themselves. The crew accepted the risk to themselves when they got in the plane. This does not in any way equate to vicarious acceptance by those below. So yeah, it's great everybody lived, both the crew and those on the ground,. But it would be a VERY different story had the plane actually fallen on the buildings it so narrowly missed by sheer chance. The crew (and airshow organizers) would be facing serious criminal and civil charges. Many lives would have been ruined or at least drastically altered. Had this happened, this incident would be seen, as it should be regardless of the actual outcome, as firing a random cannonball into a crowd. Criminally negligent homicide. By sheer chance, the cannonball skipped through the crowd without even grazing anybody. This time. But that begs the question of why we permit the potential of firing random cannonballs into crowds? Shouldn't such planes be operated with sufficient altitude so that, should their engines fail, the crew can ensure the abandoned plane will fall in a nonpopulated area before having to eject due to the limits of their seats? When I lived in DFW long ago, an Air Force F-4 went into Grapevine Lake with no survivors because the crew chose to make sure the plane would hit the lake rather than any of the developments around it. The crew died but they made sure it was only them at risk, not those on the ground who hadn't accepted the risk by getting into the plane. That, IM|HO, is the standard.

[@leifvejby8023]

The MIG had stopped flying and had started falling, but in your opinion the crew should have stayed with it for no other reason than to die in the crash, right?

[@TheBullethead]

@@leifvejby8023 Not exactly. My point was that engine failure is always a possibility so why fly routines where the abandoned plane can hit innocent bystanders? This is especially true for antique Soviet planes that weren't very reliable even in their prime, even with the full might of their native military-industrial complex able to supply them with parts and school-trained techs. I wouldn't have flown a brand new, Soviet-maintained MiG-23. I for sure wouldn't fly one in the US today. But that's just me. The fact remains, however, that flying these things anywhere but way out in the desert is always potentially shooting randomly into a crowd. That's a given. Deciding to take that risk for yourself flying the thing out in the desert is one thing,. Deciding to take that risk anywhere else is reckless, because you're putting others on the ground at risk. Because you didn't give the others any say in the matter, the onus is on you to make sure your plane doesn't hurt them. If that means going down with the ship then so be it. That's the responsibility you accepted for fliying such a thing at such an altitude in such a place.

[@leifvejby8023]

@@TheBullethead And because they failed to do that, they ought to have died in the crash?

[@TheBullethead]

@@leifvejby8023 Well, as somebody who put my life. and the lives of my subordinates, on the line every single day for 30 years in both the USMC and the fire service, perhaps I have a different perspective than you. I'm totally down with being expendable and dying so that others might live. That's what I got paid (very little) for. It never came to that for me personally nor, fortunately, for anybody under my command. But that was always the valuation of the lives of myself and my fellows, compared to the lives of the rest of society. We got paid (very little) to do the dying so that others wouldn't have to. So HELL YES! From my perspective, the crew of that MiG-23 were GROSSLY negligent in flying it AT ALL in a situation where an engine failure could lead to killing innocent bystanders who hadn't accepted the risk of the plane being overhead. And thus, HELL YES, it was the DUTY of the crew to stay with the plane until they could guarantee it wouldn't hit anybody,. EVEN IF this was at the cost of their own lives. After all, the CREW created this situation. They knew going in that what they were doing was potentially dangerous to those below, but they did it anyway. So that's being reckless right off the bat, same as firing blindly into a crowd. They were just HOPING that nothing went wrong, and then when something did go wrong, they just bailed and let sheer chance decide the outcome. Disgusting behavior no matter how you slice it.

[@theresacaron4238]

@@leifvejby8023 Since the back seater was an observer and not a crew member, he had no authority to eject the pilot in command, and yes, if that meant dying to prevent innocents on the ground getting hurt or killed, so be it. If you think innocent lives don't matter, I'm glad you are not a pilot, I know I would fly my bird to the crash scene to save other lives, something non flyers like you do not understand.

[@peterferrydriver]

To sum up all the comments pro and con, a future interview with the PIC is needed to add clarification. Everyone else is just guessing.

[@keithdrewv1161]

There's still something about this incident that just doesn't sit well with me yet. Perhaps it's because the initial NTSB report was so vague or all of the other pilot opinions and commentary I've watched since the incident, but IMHO it really feels like there was a lack of crew coordination and/or communication. It also could be that because we've only heard from the backseat observer and not yet the PIC (pilot flying), that these thoughts of lack of coordination or communication continue to circle in my mind, but something just doesn't seem right. One final thought is why would you agree to a public youtube interview so soon before any known facts or investigation reports are completed? Why wouldn't you coordinate interviews with the PIC at the same time? Again, this is only my opinion, thinking out loud so to speak. I am truly happy that both were able to safely eject with minor injuries and will live to fly another day! I look forward to more information as it becomes available from the investigation, cheers!

[@jimmyoverly3512]

Scott, would you be willing to sit down with Dan Gryder and have a discussion about this topic?

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

What does he know about this?

[@jimmyoverly3512]

@@FlyWirescottperdue He has covered it in a number of his videos and has a some thoughts on the ejection decision.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

@@jimmyoverly3512 I know he has. I know Gryder better than you do.

[@scotturschel4439]

Do lower yourself to talking with Dan

[@jimmyoverly3512]

@@FlyWirescottperdue Thanks. I'm looking forward to watching your discussion.

[@joelobryan1212]

The bottom line is the jet is a machine, it can be replaced if needed. The humans inside cannot. When its time to eject, call "eject, eject, eject". and then live.

[@jamesharris9816]

What about the humans on the ground?

[@andrewwaller5913]

​@@jamesharris9816What about them? It's just pot luck.

[@andremichau2455]

​@jamesharris9816 this is the fundamental question

[@pesawatindonesia]

sangat keren nih bos 😍😍😍

[@jimmyoverly3512]

Mark seems like a really nice guy, unfortunately he'll probably lose his airline job over this decision and his aviation career is over.

[@tpbh46]

He is not going to lose his airline job. The one has nothing to do with the other. And his airline has a union on top of that…they won’t let him lose his job.

[@P51]

Nope.

[@andremichau2455]

It's a distinct possibility. But judgement will have to be reserved until the ntsb report is out.

[@johncox4273]

⁠@@tpbh46I agree. He was not flying the aircraft, so he has NO liability exposure with the FAA or his flying career. Also with the shortage of pilots no airline would let such an experienced pilot go!

[@pattyhaley9594]

Not to worry, his union will protect him. But not innocent people unfortunately

[@LTVoyager]

I have no idea where truth lies here, but I know that in almost every case I have seen where someone hits the PR circuit before the investigation has barely begun there is a reason. And that reason is generally related to something they did wrong, know they did wrong and are hoping to establish a narrative before all of the facts come out. He would have had much more credibility to me if he had remained silent, as the pilot appears to have done thus far, until the investigation is complete and then tell his story. This just smells of impropriety to me.

[@annsheridan12]

Merely ask these questions. Was a restart possible at that airspeed and altitude? NO! Was a return to the airport possible? NO! Now the only choices are 2, eject or die in the aircraft. Note how low the pilot chute opened ,another second or two and only death left as a possibility.

[@LTVoyager]

@@annsheridan12 We don’t even know if a restart was needed. Most of what I have read to date said the engine was still operating. You are jumping to a lot of conclusions based on the account of one person who has a vested interest in making the “I had to eject” narrative. You have no idea that anything you wrote is accurate.

[@dryan8377]

Wow. Good points.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

You missed the point in the interview where it was revealed the engine was stuck in idle and the throttle could not control it.... there is NO thrust in idle by the way.

[@LTVoyager]

@@FlyWirescottperdue I did not miss that. That is what one person in the airplane says. What if the other person says that wasn’t the case? That is my point that you missed.

[@Andre.D550]

😎

[@gregknipe8772]

this man has made a mistake speaking up in this way. the law suits he will face in the days the days to come will prove he should have stayed off the internet and allow the accident to be fully investigated, (and the pilot he chose to shoot out the window has fully recovered).

[@dryan8377]

now someone is talking sense. Good post.

[@andrewwaller5913]

Law suits from who? The trees and grass he crashed into? Laughable.

[@monkeywrench-garage]

@@andrewwaller5913 What an ignorant comment. Cars, parking lot, grounds revampment, crash recovery, hospital bills, etc etc... There is millions here that will be sought from this incident.

[@noyfub]

Great Interview! In the firs interview, He said he put flaps down. That seems counterintuitive.

[@dryan8377]

wouldn't.

[@Parr4theCourse]

Time to put “Columbo” on the case…..

[@prussiaaero1802]

If there was ever something worthwhile to eject from it's this video. 9 mins of story nothing to do with this event did if for me.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

My story had everything to do with the event. Too bad you didn’t listen.

[@JSFGuy]

The plot thickens, as if we need more of this.

[@Av-vd3wk]

Is that sarcasm? I don’t know about you but I’m all for more of this! If you don’t care for it, then bail out.

[@JSFGuy]

@@Av-vd3wk thanks for the suggestion I didn't ask for, yes it's sarcasm I think we all could see for the most part what happened and the testimony after that.

[@martinda7446]

@@Av-vd3wk Mind you, listening to the man Friday, adjutant, doohickey yanker in full protection mode - yet again - is sort of useless.

[@WarblesOnALot]

G'day Scott & Mark, Yay Team ! I concur with the conclusion that Old Mate in the front seat was Gripped by Task Saturation (Diagnosis) & Target Fixation (Recovering Power) & In the Gripping-Hand is the Imperative to Magically flying their way out of Whatever Emergency threatens their Busyness-Plan & Cashflow Model for Airshow Display Fees to generate a Return on their Capital already Invested..., in the Airframe which is destined, fated and doomed to crash. If Mark wasn't in the back Seat, that Crash would have had no survivors. Segue..., Last week guess who bought a Talaria Sting (L1e), a registerable Electric Motorbike....? It turns out that to be nice to the Battery it can go 50 Km at 40 Km/Hr, on 22% Throttle (1,311 Watts of current), from the 2,300 W/hr Battery...; the Bike can carry a 100 kg Rider (I'm 60 Kg & my Trailer is rated for 40 Kg @ 40 Km/Hr) up a 45° Slope, at 45 Km/hr...; and on the Road that speed is Software enforced - regulated to 3,500 Watts (58% Throttle !). Unregulated, off-Road, at 100% the Motor gets 6,000 watts at 70 Km/hr for 22 minutes to kill the Battery, or 17 minutes to keep it all friendly.... The Bike has an 8.35 : 1 Gear Ratio from Motor to Wheel, so at 70 Km/6,000 Watts the Wheel is only doing 575 RPM on 61 Hp of Torque... In 1992 my 425cc 22Hp Ultralight Motorglider, Direct Drive at 4,200 RPM with a 41.5-inch by 12.5-inch Propeller..., Stalled at 25 mph, Climbed 200 Ft/Min at 36 mph & was flat out at 45 mph - and I power-dived it to see 60 mph, once. To visit my Friends 50 Km away, I'm goanna need to take a spare Battery in the Trailer to come home on..., so that's $2,200 atop the $8,000 Bike... But once I have a spare Battery, then a spare Motor and Speed Controller is only a further $1,400... And, them, I can both alternate the Batteries in the Bike - when not gallivanting off 30 miles to attend a Party..; AND, the spare Motor and Speed-Controller - at 4.15 : 1, will put 30.5 Hp of Twistiness into one's Propellering Shaft, at 1,175 RPM. Which, for Take-off, with a 96-inch by 47-inch Propeller at 92% Efficiency instead of about 70% - of attaining the Betz-Limit (0.5963) means that instead of about 9.8 Horsepower of Thrust from the Airscrew, will have 17.9 great big slow Clydesdale type of Horses worth of actual Thrust. I make it 2 minutes full Power to 1,000 ft, + 5 min's at 75% to reach 2,750..., and it's a Motorglider, so one might go back down to 1,000 a couple of times, and come back to 2,750 ; or one might thermal up to 10,000 ft, deadstick. If at 2,750 the first time, dropping back to 60 % for 15 minutes in still air would see one at 11,250 ft above the Field, with 11 min's of 22% Throttle with which to execute one 2-minute Climb back to 1,000 ft after one missed approach - without taking the Battery under 20%... However, the Motorbike features 4-stage Regenerative Braking... So if it gets cold at 11,250 ft, unbrake the Propeller, Nose over and return the 2 miles vertically to the Circuit-joining Area at 1,000 Ft...; in Stage 4 Regen., basically a 450 Pound Electric Wind Turbine in a 50 mph Wind... Thus arriving back with maybe enough Battery for a Circuit & Bump, or two, too ? The Solar Panels and Batteries, Charge Controller and Inverter to run the Bike run to $8,000, the Shed to hold it is another $2,000, and eChainsaw/eBrushcutter/eLeafblower as a triptych means about another $4,000. So the extra $3,600 for a Battery/Motor/Speed Controller on hand for Biggles Fantasies is probably almost a forgiveable indulgence...(?). One hopes. Such is life. Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !

[@davidkarr214]

When in doubt punch out!!!

[@thenorseman2804]

These fighter planes must be allowed to fly, but de-arm the ejection seats so that this does not happen again. This coward was lucky this time that no lives were lost! I have to say it is sickening to see this fellow jumping into the media to produce a story that exonerates him from guilt and incompetence. While the skipper who did the right thing has not spoken out.

[@avflyguy]

I came to watch and listen, but didn't hear much from the guy I wanted to listen to.

[@martinda7446]

There isn't anything else he can say. I heard the following; 'I judged we were in danger' 'I pulled the eject cord' 'I swam to the boat and said, I'm injured get me to hospital''. They said . er..your mate is OK.. The cop said, 'er..the aircraft miraculously missed a housing estate by twenty feet'. He never asked. Everybody watching the event, including the people who now agree with the ejection, immediately thought... WHAT THE..?? That is certain. We will eventually find out, I'm not convinced at all, but saying that... For his sake, I hope they find he did the right thing. Nobody should wish anything else.. These things are hard to live with.

[@dryan8377]

@@martinda7446 Wow, very well stated Martin. I wish I had your mental patience and acuity to echo this. Great job sir.

[@martinda7446]

@@dryan8377 Aww! Thank you Dryan8377. I think you certainly do have all those things and more. That was the nicest reply I have ever received - And the best constructed with perfect grammar. 😸

[@gama1123]

Nine minutes in, the old guy is still talking...

[@martinda7446]

I wanted to ask if he was his mother?

[@prussiaaero1802]

Word has it, he's still going. Thanks for the tip - I ejected from this video.

[@martinda7446]

@@prussiaaero1802 😹😹😹 Ha, ha, ha.

[@joemeyer6876]

‘There I was, there I was, inverted!’