Mig 23 Ejection UPDATE NTSB Prelim More Details

[@JBAutomotive794]

When I first heard that the backseat guy pulled the handle I thought that he had a freak out and did it at the wrong time. After watching this I beleive he actually saved their lives.

[@pdxyadayada]

What a brilliant, comprehensive explanation! Thank you. Most reports I’ve heard up to yours, tended to ‘blame’ the back seater for initiating the ejection ‘prematurely. ‘ Nice job!

[@sanfranciscobay]

Juan, the Defense Attorney for the Pilots.

[@laysdong]

That's because the back seater initiated early. Saying "well ejection minimum was 6500 so they had no choice" when you're flying exclusively between 500 and 2000 is a bit of a copout don't you think?

[@randallmarsh1187]

@@laysdong Did you not see how low they were and continuing to fall? Any further delay and both pilots may have been lost due to not enough altitude for the chutes to properly open, etc. It seems that you either did not listen to Juan's analysis or completely disregarded it.

[@kiwidiesel]

Well to be fair premature ejection can take an eye out 😂

[@wendygerrish4964]

Just in time reflex.

[@fntsmk]

Scott Purdue - Flywire Channel just posted a 52 minute video with Mark Ruff, who was the backseat pilot in the MiG-23 that crashed at Willow Run. Excellent, comprehensive conversation where Mark explains when and why they had to jump out of the jet. At the end, Scott Purdue mildly scolds Mark by telling him, "You waited too long to eject."

[@TheGrobe]

I was just about to say the same thing because I just discovered it. Should be a very interesting watch!

[@dcxplant]

Is Mr. Ruff type rated in a MiG-23?

[@fastone942]

@@dcxplanthe own a Single seat MIG 23 so the answer is most definitely yes and is a former naval Carrier pilot

[@ghorn3136]

@@fastone942 I believe he was working toward his MIG23 Type Rating and the back seat experience is part of that training. He and the Owner had flown together as a crew several times previously.

[@jaywillelec]

@@dcxplant Yes

[@scottstewart5784]

They put a mutual ejection handle on both seats for a reason. Pilot task fixation is one.

[@PetesGuide]

The most underrated comment I’ve yet seen on the topic. Every person who says the GIB was wrong or worse needs to read your comment!

[@daffyduk77]

Shouldn't allow this kind of experimentation within miles of residential accommodation ?? What's going on, USA authorities ? Land of the free, but right to life for the uninvolved should be number-1

[@cliffcannon]

The new news in your report is that the engine had reverted to idle; if accurate, there was no chance of a return to the runway. Thanks for your usual professional analysis, Juan!

[@zachansen8293]

No chance of getting back to the runway doesn't mean "couldn't have controlled where it crashed so it didn't endanger a residential neighborhood"

[@laysdong]

Right. Could have pointed it just about any other direction than where they did and it would have crashed into the middle of fields. If we're going to hand-wave pilots doing this stuff then we need to stop allowing them to fly jalopy experimental macgyvered garbage in airshows over residential areas

[@williamstrachan]

@@zachansen8293 by the point we see it in the videos, they were out of energy to change things, but whether the turn should have progressed that far or if there was a better ditch possible... could have taken the nose down and tried to get it to stop in the lake?

[@kenclark9888]

@@zachansen8293go home troll.

[@cliffcannon]

@@zachansen8293 You make a valid point ... but when the crew has reached the altitude and sink rate where they will certainly die if they don't eject, they have to make a tough decision (actually they should have made it well in advance): what are the odds that people on the ground will be harmed if we abandon the aircraft? Also, review the entire video - the expert test pilot explained that aircraft type will enter an unpredictable spin below a certain airspeed - so the crew would not actually be able to control the final descent in any case.

[@EsotericSoul]

About 35 years ago, I witnessed the crew of an F-4E at Clark Air Base experience an unlocked wing tip on takeoff. Just after rotating, the aircraft immediately banked to the right because of the unlocked wing tip folded. The WSO went first with about 45 degrees of bank, and survived. The Pilot, sadly, ejected headfirst into the infield between the runway and ramp. It was determined as I recall, that both the crew chief and the crew missed the unlocked wingtip pin protruding upward, during preflight. This was a very preventable loss of life and aircraft.

[@Rogue-7.62]

I saw a video of a Navy F-8 Crusader that had a similar incident back in the 70's from a land based Naval airfield, but the single pilot never made it out. It rolled rapidly after takeoff, apparently to fast for the pilot to eject. Yes the F-8 had folding wing tips, sort of like the F-4. Just not the up angle at the tips. In the black and white video, you could see the tip flip over like it normally folds and then tear off as the fighter lifted up. It was shocking how fast that damn thing rolled before plowing in. I can't recall what the cause was exactly, but it seems like the blame was fully on the ground crew. I have never seen that video anywhere outside of the military, even to this day.

[@nohandleleft]

These days at Clark it's all V-22 Ospreys, loads of C130s, a bunch of reaper drones, and sometimes very late at night when they think nobody is looking, the odd RQ variant might drop in for some fuel. The aprons are populated with shipping containers and drone pilots now. They like to keep an eye on the Spratly Islands in particular, but basically everywhere from Jakarta all the way up to Vladivostok.

[@williamhudson4938]

The same thing happened at George AFB, on July 2, 1979. F-4E, 69-0269, Left wing was unlocked, but the red Pin indicator was broken and stayed flush with the upper surface of the wing instead of sticking up telling the ground and aircrew it was unlocked. Thankfully, no one was hurt. the aircrew landed on the ramp among the Thud squadron. One seat landed on the motor pool wash rack, the other destroyed a POV in the parking lot and the jet hit the ground less than 100 yards from 3 million gallons of jet fuel in storage tanks. There were aircraft pieces on top of the fuel storage tanks when the dust cleared. I was a Crew Chief in the 561st at the time and the pilots were very vigorous in checking the wings were locked before climbing in to fly after that.

[@typhoon2827]

There was a similar incident with a RAF Phantom and it was used as a basis for a training film. There are a few actors in it (Mr Bronson from Grange Hill) but most of the cast are servicemen. Worth a watch.

[@johnp139]

You would think that something THAT CRITICAL would have some kind a warning in the cockpit.

[@josephroberts6865]

Scott Perdue has a fantastic interview with the back seat pilot who goes through the entire engine failure and ejection, as well as recovery and hospital visit.

[@FP194]

Did the pilot explain why they ejected with no regard to the apartment complex they almost destroyed and killed people

[@MrMaxyield]

​@FP194 unfortunately that was not an option

[@brianeaton3734]

@@FP194if you look at the google earth view at the end of this video you’ll notice plenty of empty space around the airport just past the apartment complex. Perhaps that’s why the waited as long as they did.. to guide the plane toward that area.

[@Primus54]

@@FP194Why don’t you go watch the interview and find out for yourself before passing judgement? 🙄

[@roadcyclist1]

​@FP194 if you had been flying this whole incident would have most likely ended in loss of life, including your own. Take a seat, Mr. Armchair quarterback.

[@ThomasGabrielsen]

I just watched @FlyWirescottperdue's interview with the pilot in the backseat, Mark Ruff. The video was published yesterday and the title is: "Mig23 Ejection Know When to Say When". It is an 52 minutes long interview packed with interesting information. Mark Ruff cleared up a couple of things that was wrong in the preliminary report. I took some notes: According to Mark Ruff (the pilot in the backseat) it was he who set the wings to 16. He also said that the interview with FAA was conducted "90 minutes to two hours after ejecting from the airplane" while they were on "[...] heavy medications." and continues "We're in extreme pain and it was a hazy time in general". Both pilots had broken their backs (compression fractures) but they didn't know what kind of injury they had in their back at the time of the interview with FAA. They were therefore understandably very shaken up, and that was by his own words: "[...] not a valuable time to be organized[...]" for an interview. I know it's important to interview (i.e. witnesses, etc.) as quick as possible after an incident, but only a couple of hours after an violent ejection seems not only unnecessary, but irresponsible. But that's my personal and unqualified opinion. I highly recommend you to watch @FlyWirescottperdue's interview.

[@deliawolfe]

Thank you for your expert and objective analysis of this incident. Obviously, the situation was far more dire than those less informed could have imagined. It's a miracle there were no injuries.

[@thudthud5423]

I walked the crash area and compared it to Google Maps. The crashed pretty much threaded a needle. A few degrees in either direction, a little bit earlier or later and there would have been deaths.

[@natural-born_pilot]

@@thudthud5423I totally agree with you when that observer pilot initiated the ejection it was at the most opportune time to do it not a second more.

[@VladimirRegalado-i6v]

Excuse me for saying this, but the Russian MIG 23(UB) training and combat aircraft are designed so that the instructor in the rear cockpit can evaluate the actions of the pilot in the front cockpit when there is an emergency, therefore from the You can fly the rear cabin, and even disconnect the (RUD) in English engine control lever, to simulate the engine off, in my opinion the one who was in the rear cabin (for us Instructor), disconnected the RUD. The R29-300 has an R-12 system that regulates the engine temperature, if something happens it cuts the engine fuel little by little, always telling the pilot, we had problems with these engines, due to the compressor screws, which They rust and break, causing engine overheating, but I've never heard of them stalling or idling.Also this catapult KM1 series 3, you can catapult 0 in height, and more than 130 KM/h, only for the UB minimum height 5 for vertical speed, this catapult is very safe for us. I'm sorry for my English, I learned it on the street, the communists don't let you study it, (You can only study Russian

[@BigDickMark]

Your English is fine! Thank you for sharing your experience with us!

[@TheAceTroubleshooter]

I think at the very least... Leveling out the wings and pointing the craft into the water, then ejecting would have been the... Responsible thing to do but... That's my line of thinking.. I will probably end up dying a martyr at some point... Do you think they could have pulled that off and still ejected intime?

[@recoilrob324]

Flywire channel just had an interview with the back seat guy...very detailed description of the whole deal. Give it a look...they did all they could when the engine went to idle and the plane was losing speed and altitude. They were at the very bottom of the ejection envelope and the plane was at stall speed and buffeting....they were out of options. The NTSB report came from both pilots sitting under sedation with broken backs...not the best time for an interview.

[@stevehewitt4190]

Thank-you Juan for your description of this incident in the States and I would agree with that lack of airspeed decaying and height reducing the back seater did everything right. If you think you might have to eject then go now, in 5 seconds you just might not have the chance. At least this aircrew got to diagnose what happened in the bar afterwards. Good to know no-one was hurt on the ground when airframe crashed.

[@user-pf5xq3lq8i]

Sullenberger didn't make that choice.

[@johncox4273]

@@user-pf5xq3lq8i Not sure what you’re getting at here?

[@plcwboy]

that's a rather stupid comment. He didn't have a choice to make. He also wasn't flying a spin-prone fighter which is never going to recover from a stall in those conditions. @@user-pf5xq3lq8i

[@SmittySmithsonite]

WOW, from the ground, you don’t get that danger perspective as to how low they were, and how fast they were descending. They were way too close! Thank God for that rear seat pilot! Zero fatalities - can’t get much better than that given the circumstances.

[@russellmillett5642]

I was volunteering, saw it from a side profile. Going off of memory (I know eyewitness reports can be distorted), it definitely appeared to be at a rate much lower than even a carrier landing glide slope. By the time my brain had processed how low and slow they were, ejection had happened. Even then for a split second, I had thought maybe it was just some type of pyro for the show. So many thoughts in such a short period, and that was just me standing on the ground lol. Seems like the rear-seater made the right call just in time honestly

[@SmittySmithsonite]

@@russellmillett5642 Indeed! Wow, that must’ve been crazy to watch unfold.

[@easttexan2933]

@SmittySmithsonite Thank God for His grace and allowed a miracle to happen. Many lives were spared when His angels redirected the aircraft to miss the apt building. This does not always happen. His grace was sufficient for this day.

[@russellmillett5642]

@SmittySmithsonite going to school for my A&P license at the moment, hope to never witness another one

[@Wannes_]

@@easttexan2933 Well if you believe that, then your god also caused the fuel issue ... Can't have your cookie (or host) and eat it

[@jimw1615]

Scott Perdue just published an interview with the rear seat pilot (yes, he is an active MiG-23 pilot) with many of the answers to the questions that have been asked and to some more that have just begun.

[@TBrady]

It sounds like the back seat made the right choice. Pilot was too deep in the weeds troubleshooting and didn't have the spatial awareness to realize they were almost outside their ejection envelope. Machines can be replaced, human life cannot

[@Nikowalker007]

Great Point, Target Fixation killed a lot of people who were desperately trying to salvage the plane until it was too late to eject

[@michaeldavenport5034]

Always can count on Juan, Ward Carroll and the Flywire channels to provide the correct information. Thanks to all of them for doing this.

[@user-pf5xq3lq8i]

Add mentorpilot to your list of Ryanair/Boeing/ government shills.

[@michaeldavenport5034]

@@user-pf5xq3lq8i have already been watching his channel.

[@deantait8326]

Of those Juan seems to be primarily facts and stats and not a lot of opinion. On a couple other Fighter Pilot type channels I’m hearing several front seaters (PIC) or solo pilots throwing some shade on the guy in the back and while I generally really trust these guys opinions, none seems as well prepared as Juan. A couple said they thought the back seater was acting like an IP but one also mentioned, it turned out good even if the crew coordination was poor. I can’t help but think if the PIC had his head buried in a check list and for even a second thought about loosing “his” plane … Even Ward who I’m afraid I find a bit too full of himself, just kinda off putting, I believe was saying he didn’t believe he’d initiate the get-out without clearing it with his pilot. I understand the concern for neck injuries. This is way too many words to again say Juan’s appraisal of the situation seems the most fact based and just rational.

[@JuvianTV]

@@user-pf5xq3lq8i😂💀🙄

[@Ryan-mq2mi]

You’ve got to be careful with Ward, unfortunately. He’s politically/ideologically captured and it affects his work sometimes. Obviously that sucks because he’s very capable and one of the best. I just couldn’t listen to it anymore, I’m there for the flying content, get enough of that other crap everywhere else. It’s possible he changed in the last year.

[@LtNduati]

RIO/Back-seater really saved the day. Initially I thought buddy in the back was a little too cautious, and I now agree, without a shadow of a doubt, back seater is a hero

[@watashiandroid8314]

While perhaps the technically correct procedure, he gambled the lives of unknown uninvolved people on the ground in exchange for their own higher chance of safety. Morally that is wrong to me. I have considered situations in flying with no good choices and I have preemptively decided that I will put myself and any passengers at more risk than people on the ground if I have to make a choice like that.

[@jimmyoverly3512]

@@watashiandroid8314 I totally understand and appreciate where you're coming from, but my understanding is they had gotten so slow there was no more maneuvering they could have done. What situation would you prefer: N dead people on the ground or N+2 dead people on the ground + pilots?

[@DERP_Squad]

​@@watashiandroid8314it wasn't a gamble, the aircraft was on the verge of going from flying to falling. If the pilot and observer had stayed with the aircraft, they'd have just fallen with it with no way of influencing where it fell. At that point, the only sane action is to punch out. There's no point in them staying in the aircraft because they can't save anyone but themselves at that point.

[@watashiandroid8314]

@@DERP_Squad all by itself the plane crashed right next to the river. Rivers and other water surfaces are usually sparsely populated, especially in the middle (maybe this one wasn't that day). I would be shocked if a pilot with working controls couldn't have ditched the plane in the river. Though it seems like maybe the pilot with the controls wasn't flying the airplane and maybe the back seater couldn't get the pilot's attention (from the statements though, it didn't seem like much urgency was used in trying to get the pilot to fly the plane rather than fiddle with the engine). I really hope this investigation goes into the human factors of this incident, the decision making of both the pilot and back seat observer. The initial statements are not enough on that front.

[@SteamCrane]

@@jimmyoverly3512 They waited too long, until controllability was lost. At that point, they no longer had good options.

[@gregwhite7957]

Thanks for the update and explanation of the situation Juan. That flight crew had there hands full with little time. Thank God there were no casualties. Have a GREAT Labor Day weekend Juan. Stay safe.

[@coldlakealta4043]

thank God they ejected over water. hitting the hard ground at that altitude would have been deadly.

[@mb-3faze]

Somehow it seems completely fine for the pilots to save themselves from a crippled plane thus endangering uninvolved residents below. The pilots should have done the honorable thing and guided, as best they could, the craft to an unpopulated area and sacrificed themselves if necessary. An unpopular opinion, of course, but I don't think God hand anything to do with the lack of casualties: luck is a better word. Would these pilots be charged with unintentional death if someone or several families had been killed?

[@christiansiegert9895]

@@mb-3faze At 9:09 you can see they are dropping like a stone with wings. There was no speed and altitude left to guide/control the plane.

[@robgrey6183]

@@christiansiegert9895 So, the obvious question: why was this old Russian junker doing acrobatic maneuvers at low altitude over a densely populated area?

[@roadcyclist1]

​@@mb-3fazethey were about to enter an uncontrollable stall, you fool!

[@JPM-NM]

My first reaction when I saw the report was that the final report will go more in depth on what happened and ultimately if the PRO made the right call to eject. This is the most in depth vid on that decision so far. Great information.

[@57Jimmy]

Thank you very much for the insight Juan! Talking about the different type of ejection seats brings up the sad loss of one of our Snowbirds members a year or two ago. These Tutor jets had the same style of non-gyro controlled seats and her chute failed to open in time. The pilot himself was seriously wounded but his chute opened just enough to slow him down. Other reports online about this incident do absolutely nothing to explain when power was lost, their descent and edge of stall, leading many to question the decision to eject. You have made it perfectly clear. This was a professional calculated decision in the blink of an eye! Thank you SO MUCH for your expertise on this and every other report you make!🫡🇨🇦

[@owenmerrick2377]

C.W. Lemoine on his channel went through the actual AIB report, on the May 17, 2020 Snowbird accident. TheTutor had eaten a bird just after takeoff, and the ejections were very late for the low altitude...anyway, he goes over the report.

[@57Jimmy]

@@owenmerrick2377thanks for this! I will have to check it out.☺️

[@MattH-wg7ou]

Yea that was a sad one. I remember watching the video and thinking "Eject! Eject already!" It was too late. The jet had already stalled and there was no recovering it. Of course this is with the benefit of hindsight. It is drilled pretty hard in training to DO NOT delay the decision to eject. Delayed decisions to eject are responsible for so many otherwise survivable ejections. Tough to make that enormous life changing decision in the moment in a split second though.

[@Wannes_]

Another pilot trying the impossible turn, against all boldface and previous deadly experience with Tutors, killing the Snowbirds' PR officer in the process

[@cdragonboys27]

Great explanation of the crash, but you are off on the crash site. The actual site of the crash is just on the west side of the last apartment building at the corner of the I-94 south service Dr. and Denton Rd. Just north of the abandoned golf course, which is north east of where you placed it. Love this video and thank you for the excellent explanation.

[@mortcs]

Watched the flywire interview, they were well outside the minimums for engine loss. Ejection was the right call according to the manual. Seems like the maintenence crew did a great job of maintaining the old russian ejection seats.

[@zachansen8293]

"the manual" is wrong if you're going to crash your jet into a neighborhood and it says to eject anyhow.

[@kenclark9888]

@@zachansen8293didn’t hit anyone did it Captain Amazing

[@mortcs]

The problem is not the pilots ejection, the problem is performing an airshow over residential areas. Airshow involve high risk low altitude flying with ancient aircraft that require expensive maintenance.

[@laysdong]

​@@kenclark9888it crashed into an apartment complex and narrowly missed one of the busiest freeways in the country. I hope you're not a pilot if you think relying on pure dumb luck is acceptable

[@TyphoonVstrom]

@@laysdong How is it any different to one of the many hundreds of auto accidents that do the same thing every year?

[@chaplainleggitt7472]

Great update. I was at the park just south of I-94, and west of the crash site, when it flew over my head. At that time I estimated that it was at 300 feet. Looks like I made a pretty good guess.

[@thudthud5423]

A friend of someone I know at work was on Belleville Lake and right underneath the plane when they ejected. He has THE BEST photo of the ejection shot from directly below the plane.

[@docnele]

I've read about similar case in 1976 on MiG-23M (single seater). When conducting ground attack practice with unguided rockets, the fuel unit shut off the fuel supply (to avoid engine surge due to rocket fumes), but it did not restore it after rocket launch. Pilot tried to restart it for almost two minutes and ejected in the last moment. It brings to my mind- that Will E. Coyote scene where he is trying to restart that boat engine while falling down the waterfall...

[@johnnunn8688]

It won’t shut off the fuel supply because then the engine would flame out. The FCU trims the fuel supply briefly, to prevent the surge. The RR Avon engine in the Hunter F6, had blow off valves on the LP compressor, to achieve the same aim, when firing the Vulcan cannons.

[@user-pf5xq3lq8i]

Stick to cartoons.

[@BadAssEngineering]

For what i can surmise, watching the video with your explanation; the Observer saved both of their lives with literally only a couple seconds to spare. That plane was stalling and almost falling to the ground, a couple of seconds later and the pilot chute wouldnt have had the altitude to open in time

[@bigjeff1291]

Thanks Juan! Lucky no one on the ground was injured.

[@esanchez12043]

Thank you for your videos! I was a crew chief on T-37s at Mather from 1981-1985

[@falje1]

I had a similar situation with an L-29 Delfin training jet. The owner was sitting in the back seat and I was supposed to instruct him on this plane. I was the pilot flying. During the briefing I told him that he should operate the flaps and the landing gear on my instructions. In the left downwind at about 1000 feet ground I pulled the thrust lever to idle in order to to reduce the speed to gear down speed. Then I told him to lower the landing gear. At that moment, the warning lights flashed and the aural warning tone came on. On a quick check, while immediately turning towards the runway on a short left base I found out that the engine was shut off. I noticed that the fuel cut off lever was at engine stop, meaning pulled completely back. I pushed the lever fully forward again and pressed the starter and took the thrust lever from idle to half power. The engine started again while I was turning and descending to final turn maintaining speed avoiding a stall, selecting flaps down and performing a normal landing. What happened? On the L-29 you can only move the fuel cut off lever to fuel cut off in IDLE thrust. The colleague in the back seat accidentally pulled the fuel cut-off lever backwards and by doing that he switched off the engine. Understanding and analyzing the situation, then making a plan and executing it has to happen within seconds while turning into the base turn and final turn is a critical thing. As you can see, you can't be too careful.

[@merkin22]

Your ability to explain (teach) is a super power, sir! As always, thanks for your great content.

[@JeffreyBue_imtxsmoke]

You are a great communicator. Your analysis and breakdown of this accident was very easy to understand.

[@ColinFisher]

Given that Juan didn’t have the advantage of seeing Scott Purdue's interview with the backseater who punched out, he was still pretty spot on with what happened. Scott’s interview filled in a lot of gaps from the preliminary report.

[@Zupdood2]

Is that interview available on KZbin?

[@Jasoos_Jasonda]

@@Zupdood2 Do you have a device that can play KZbin videos? You can easily look it up.

[@ilyapopov823]

@@Zupdood2 Yes the title is "Mig23 Ejection Know When to Say When"

[@lukestrasser]

I had dinner with Dan at the Aircrew dinner the night before this incident. Dan is a great guy and I’m glad that he was able to get out of the aircraft safely.

[@donc9751]

Great explanation Juan!!! I has wondered, if the Pilot in front seat was wanting to hang on trying to save the plane because he owned, while the back seater punched them both out, if he (pilot flying in front seat) was going to be mad at the guy for doing it, or thanking him. Being out of position in the seat due to trouble shooting at time of ejection seems like it could cause serious spinal or other injuries at that time. Such great luck that no injuries occurred on the ground!!!!

[@maxstr]

I wonder if the long delay between the first and second ejections is long enough for the pilot to brace himself

[@donc9751]

@@maxstr good point, I hope so!

[@DERP_Squad]

​@@maxstrI doubt it, it's a very quick sequence in real time and the pilot would have had to have stopped concentrating 100% on saving the aircraft, realised the back seater had pulled the ejection handle, and braced. I'd take a bet he got about half way through the thought that it had just gotten mighty drafty in the cockpit before he was ejected.

[@skunkjobb]

Now it makes more sense. First it was reported that only the afterburner failed to ignite. That wouldn't be a problem, you can fly just fine without it but if the engine went to idle, that's a totally different thing.

[@RealRickCox]

I know Dan Gryder likes to get out ahead of these stories... but this highlights why it's sometimes a good idea to wait and get more information. Dan seemed to think these pilots should have done more to make sure the plane couldn't hit anyone after ejection. But given the facts presented here - that wasn't an option. I'm just glad nobody was hurt!

[@jimmyoverly3512]

Dan also said the backseater was a famous KZbinr. Is Mark a KZbinr?

[@roscoejones4515]

Gryder's a narcissistic moron who's big mouth has just made him a million $ poorer. Cue the schadenfreude.

[@williamstrachan]

Take what Dan says with a pinch of salt, he's recently put himself in a bit of a situation with things he's said.

[@DrJohn493]

IMO, this type of airshow/flight activity should not have been conducted at an airport surrounded by dense urban/residential use. Airports have a hard enough time keeping their neighbors happy and airshow incidents like this don't help them with maintaining good relations. Incidents like this are often the cause of local folks petitioning to close the airport for certain types of traffic, if not close it altogether. Big headaches for airport management.

[@ww3662]

Dan Gryder is a nut case

[@swerwerindiewind7334]

Many fighter pilot’s have died because they left the ejection to long while trouble shooting (or getting task saturated). The guy in the back seat has a lot more spare capacity. You see this all the time in simulator training, the guys in the front start missing things as the pressure mount… sitting behind them you see everything clearly…and not just because you caused the trouble😂.

[@Nikowalker007]

Yeah, “target fixation” killed a lot of people , the mind is overwhelmed by information and gets zoned out , they literally had no spare time to trouble shoot and had to eject asap There’s a reason why most jet still require two pilots to operate

[@SnakebitSTI]

I've heard it said that a partially functioning engine is much more dangerous than a dead engine, and this seems like an example of why. Sounds like the pilot flying didn't realize the situation was irrecoverable until it was too late to do anything but eject.

[@bertblankenstein3738]

Or not enough altitude/ time to fix the problem, and the plane would hit the ground, either with or without them.

[@plcwboy]

It was too late to do anything but eject when the engine quite engining.

[@iancole85]

Great common sense logic there. I will remember that

[@Breznak]

Thank you for explaining this, because the basic story which came out almost give the impression of the back-seater screwing up, which I didn't want to believe.

[@chrispnw2547]

This is one of my favorite channels as I have always been intrigued by the 'magic' of aerospace but don't have the technical knowledge to understand the detailed science, engineering, and best practices making this sort of travel safe and commonplace. I depend greatly on Juan's teachings as I travel long distances by plane frequently and like to understand how operations work. When this industry stops, the world in many ways stops as aerospace is integral to our lives in so many ways. I hope Juan does a brief video on the recent stoppage across the globe due to the UK traffic control system totally failing for several hours and the knock-on affects across numerous global flights impacted. This is extremely rare and given backup systems failed, the public should be very concerned.

[@user-pf5xq3lq8i]

Yes their ATC system got hacked again. Public told it was France that did it by accident. If in doubt, blame the French.

[@iangoldsworthy2056]

The UK grounding was because a pilot put the wrong flight path into the log system and knocked the server down because the computer couldn't acknowledge it and shut itself down, When the back up tried to fire up because of the red flag in the system it too couldn't start up, Had to be done manually which took several hours to log flights. Then on top of that you had b 18:29 acklog of 1200 flights to clear. This was at NATS in Swanwick. Two Euro Typhoons were scrambled after the error.

[@chrispnw2547]

@@iangoldsworthy2056 Thanks for the additional information

[@raybankes7668]

Hi Juan, i listened to Scott's Fly Wire interview with the back seat crewman and yes he was very aware of their air speed wing config and sink rate. He mentioned the substantial Buffetting and they were talking about all this. He did tell the pilot we got to get out of here and in the interview give a very clear picture what happened. I recommend watching that inter view to every one. Your description here matches with less detail the back seat pilot's story. Thanks to both of you posting on this crash. They ejected at the very bottom of the altitude envelope to survive.

[@babygrrlpc5057]

Thanks again for a debrief that allows even us non-pilots to fully comprehend the details. You must be a fantastic instructor. Thanks for always taking the time to educate the community. We know that, for you, sharing this information isn’t about the “likes” but the “to live”’s.

[@flyermarkbig465]

Great summary and added details. No way that plane had time, speed or altitude to make it back. I was there as witnessed it as well as was monitoring communication between the air boss and the pilot. By the time the AB finished acknowledging the declared emergency (which was declared before they cleared the end of 23) the pilots were ejecting.

[@blackbandit1290]

Spent a lot of time (as an Air Traffic Controller) in the RAAF watching Mirage jets doing PFL's. High Key was at FL200 and then a 270 degree turn from there onto final. It was well practiced by the pilots but it became clear toward the end of the Mirage's life that a 'real' PFL wasn't something that should be attempted for pretty much the same reason these guys jumped ship. Always better to get out when within the envelope rather than taking a chance with your life when outside the envelope. These guys were so lucky!

[@neuropilot7310]

I thought the checklist for the Mirage emergency procedures, such as landing gear failure, engine failure, etc. Step 1. Eject. Eject. Step 2. There is no Step 2. Ancient times ago Bill Richardson corrected us and said there times they attempted real emergency landing is attempted, but realistically, somebody is ejecting out if the engine fails unless they have a lot of altitude to spare

[@user-pf5xq3lq8i]

Cool story bro

[@JuvianTV]

Thanks Juan, I love Ward Carroll’s channel but his analysis of this crash overlooked some critical aspects of this particular situation that you cover, e.g., sink rate, distance to runway, ejection seat system, and potential tunnel vision of the front seater. Thanks dude.

[@otm646]

The sink rate point is so critical here. The people I spoke to who saw this occur first hand said "It was falling out of the sky" and "It just didn't sound right". They weren't straight and level, they were already in a compromised position and orientation when the issues presented. I would be curious if the air show participants have a standard procedure for ditching in the lake. Belleville Lake right there is usually lightly trafficked. There's almost no one on Ford lake ever.

[@Wannes_]

Surprisingly so, as it was his job to punch them both out if his pilot didn't in due time. Ejecting too late IS an issue

[@perwestermark8920]

I missed the info that the ejection seats had no gimbal system and the checklist information from Ward Carroll's video. They were way lower than recommended ejection height in the checklist. They were way lower and slower than the engine restart routine from the checklist. No energy left. And the quarter-speed ejection sequence really did highlight the significant sink rate of the plane. All these extra details did add a lot to the full context.

[@hyime69]

Again a great insight into this accident Juan. During my Military career I witnessed 5 Ejections of which one was not fully successful due too a Harrier T4 aircraft on an incentive ride becoming unstable in the hover and the crew ejecting at low level. The pilot coming out at 95 degrees from vertical after the rear seater had made a successful ejection. Of all the escapes I have witnessed they all were ultra quick with the 2 seaters being both out of the aircraft in under 3 seconds. The Tornado aircraft I witnessed both crew were under canopies at a safe height again within 3 seconds.

[@johnnunn8688]

What’s your nickname, Jonah?

[@tomastuharsky]

Thank you! Great video! Just by watching the altitude and speed of the aircraft, even without knowing the exact parameters of engine flameout procedure, I guessed that in 70s fighter jet, they were lucky to even eject successfully. Nevermind trying to land it.

[@kwasg3]

Thanks for the clear informative vid!!! As a casual observer with zero experience, it wasn't until 11 min into this vid that I realized this had only 1 engine. Now this makes more sense. Didn't the crew land in water? At 300 feet and banked that seems amazing there were no injuries. Also obviously amazingly lucky no ground casualties.

[@toadelevator]

Thank you for the thorough analysis! Now that I hear the recommended altitudes for the procedures involved, it seems the back-seater assessed the situation very well. Shame about the aircraft, but very lucky for everyone in the air and on the ground.

[@exist7309]

Another excellent explanation Juan. I look forward to reading the root cause failure analysis for the earlier fuel system issue on this aircraft in the final FAA report.

[@Darkvirgo88xx]

I was just watching one of the pilots interview on flywire right as you posted this.

[@SedatedandRestrained]

Fantastic breakdown as always! You seem to be a near bottomless well of knowledge and experience!

[@queazocotal]

@8:03 'And the aircraft has a substantial sink rate' - also it's not level, which means a split-second lethal, possibly accellerated stall is that much closer if they were trying to maintain altitude. It will be interesting to see if the engine is substantively intact enough to verify the original fuel control issue.

[@zosoachilles]

Yet again...logical, sequential, fact based opinion from someone with not only a background in two seater ejection procedures, but more importantly, a broad foundation of all things aviationy (new word & I'm claiming it).

[@maryloutetreault1650]

Well done explanation Juan ! Thank you for the excellent way you made this easy to see just how correct the back seater was in his decision to eject and save both of their lives. Thank goodness no one was injured on the ground.

[@russejones]

Flywire posted a interview with the back seater an hour ago.

[@ronjones-6977]

Thank you. Just watched it and came back.

[@my-yt-inputs2580]

I stopped watching this video to watch that one first. Funny he mentioned the NTSB prelimary was incorrect in a few places. I never did get the qualifications of the back seater. Ward Carrol suggested he might have been Mig 23 rated himself.

[@jaredmehrlich6683]

Ha ha .. my Mom dated a WSO - WIZO in 1985 86 .. he was an F-4 backseater for Oregon Air National Guard .. I sat in an F-4 once and was in the lawn next to the runway when the last F-4 left Portland when the F-15s came .. I've had a couple cool interactions with the F-15s as well .. very cool stuff ..

[@sanfranciscobay]

It appears an additional 1-2 second delay may have been too low for the Parachutes to open.

[@aaronlopez492]

It reminds me of the quote, "What we have here is a failure to communicate".🤔 Cool hand Luke

[@George-Edwards]

Hello Juan Wow a good friend of mine got his pilot's license back when we were in our mid 20s ( I'm 74 now and he's 2 wks older than I). We used to fly out of Willow Run all the time, I'd split the cost of rentals with him and he was happy. I'd even get a chance to handle the controls often but as a young married guy (he was single) never wanted to pursue getting a license myself. George

[@MrRugbylane]

Hot tip: If the question "Eject?" Is ever posed by a crewmember, there is only ever one answer: after the crew eject and land safely, the other crewmember answers "Yes"

[@tatocorvette]

I was eagerly waiting for your analysis on this preliminary report. Absolutely brilliant and objective, as always. It is easy to judge after the fact and from the ground but everything points to the fact that it was the right decision under a very stressful AND life threatening situation.

[@davesawchuk6584]

Great objective review as usual. Scott Perdue has posted a great interview with the back-seater.

[@Victordamus98]

Juan I was Aircrew Life Support that worked on T-37 and T-38s at Vance AFB.

[@damenprice3752]

After seeing the published ejection envelope its safe to say they were already well in exceedance thereof. Great call and solid ADM to get out, especially in light of what one would imagine they were seeing in terms of airspeed and descent rate. At the end of the day they successfully avoided unscheduled unalivedness, which is the goal.

[@KO-pk7df]

We are very fortunate to have access to your knowledge base and willingness to give us these informed analysis of AC mishaps and crashes. Thanks once more for these videos. Waiting many months and years for information from the official FAA reports is just too long and time wasted between event and lifesaving info to learn from.

[@wattheheck6010]

Thank you. I learn so much watching and listening to your videos. A miracle prevented this accident from having ground fatalities in such a populated area surrounding YIP.

[@jamesgraham6122]

To have someone with your background and experience dissecting this trail of events is an absolute pleasure.. Not least because it carves through all the uninformed speculation that clouds so many incidents and accidents. Many thanks.

[@aceshigh6499]

Thank you! Very informative. These are not zero zero ejection seats and I remember the ejection parameters were pretty tight. The backseater did the right thing!

[@fraserwatt6417]

Juan; thank you for a clear and succinct report of the incident. The back seater made a good choice to initiate the eject sequence. As you said, at least they both survived and there were no injuries on the ground. Good result.

[@alanwright3172]

Thank you for explaining, much better than I have been able to, to the community what actually happened and why. Keep up the good work.

[@jwsjr11]

Juan, now that the final NTSB report has been published, please do a recap report on the Challenger accident in Truckee, July 26, 2021. Thanks!

[@raymondshaw7186]

Scott Perdue had the backseater on his channel and got a pretty good explanation of the cause.

[@freebuilder007]

Good Morning Juan: I've been watching your Chanel here for quite a while now. I always find some new pearl of wisdom on all things Aviation. Thank you. I really enjoyed your weather and flooding aerial reporting this past winter. The situation down at Corcoran was concerning. I hope the government was taking notes. Surely, there is more to come with the increased ferocity, duration and frequency of storms here in the Sierras and the world round. I live too close to a creek and am considering moving, in the meantime a Great Blue Heron just nested up nearby and fishes and flies right below my living room, but that's another story.... May I offer a suggestion? How about pointing your wings East and giving us a flyover of the Black Rock Desert? I'd also be curious to hear about your concerns for pilot's taking off after the playa dries out a bit. Sidebar: I was out there in 96 (97?) and it rained hard for about an hour. The desert was submerged an inch or two, then the sun came out hot, and we watched the surface go from sloppy clay mud to dry dust crusted in a couple of hours.. It was astonishing how quickly it dried out and firmed up. Hopefully these pilot can get up and out mid week...+- Anyways- thanks again. You have my respect and gratitude. PS: Will you be attending the Reno Air Races...?

[@MooneyOvation2]

Juan, Scott Purdue (FlyWire) has a great interview with the back seater

[@MikeAltogether]

What a fascinating video. I'm no fighter pilot, but I do fly a two-pilot aircraft. If I had been the pilot and not ready to eject yet, but my stick buddy made the call to eject based on their best judgement, I don't think I'd be too upset about that!

[@hueywallop2461]

Very informative, thanks. Whose insurance would pay for the damages? Would the aircraft carry liability coverage similar to cars?

[@markduchow7371]

Thanks for the great explanation on this aircrafts operation when this engine type issue occurs!

[@jdaz5462]

Fun fact - Willow Run Airport played a key role in WWII. Ford Motor Company built a plant there that produced the B-24 Liberator and they were flown from Willow Run to bases in Europe. Almost 7000 B-24's were built there of the total 18,000 that were produced for the war. My grandmother riveted airplanes together at that plant. The ladies did most of the work at home while the brave men were overseas fighting.

[@robnamowicz8073]

My old man delivered those planes all over the world. He would never fly commercial cause he wasn't in the front seat.

[@ralphgesler5110]

The majority of aircraft built at Willow Run were B-17s.

[@jdaz5462]

@@ralphgesler5110I don't know what to say really, you are factually incorrect. Not a single B-17 was built at Willow Run, but 7000 B-24's were. There's tons of info online about it. Not a single source that shows a B-17 was built at the plant.

[@RockandRollWoman]

A Rosie the Riveter story! I love it. I also know the area, having gone to Michigan State as an undergrad. Thanks for the share.

[@ralphgesler5110]

I stand corrected.@@jdaz5462

[@thetowndrunk988]

Sounds like the rear pilot was on the ball and really paid attention. Awesome job

[@stephenwilliams8306]

I wonder if the rear seater was watching the numbers and realized the pilot was deep into trouble shooting and they were going to miss the survivable ejection point.I know there have been cases of pilots trying to save the plane right upto point they go splat.

[@DERP_Squad]

Add to the list of things the pilot was doing two more relatively complex tasks. Firstly, working out how to fly an aircraft that is the proof that a brick with enough thrust will fly, without the thrust. Secondly, navigating said underpowered brick back to the field. I'd be he quickly worked out a runway wasn't an option, but an empty bit of grass would do.

[@JayneCobbsBunk]

Thanks for the explanation at the end of who had the differing responsibilities. Headlines i saw elsewhere suggested the ejection was not agreed upon by both.

[@GRW3]

A fuel pump failure could be a problem. Military fuels JP8/F24 includes lubricity additive. It has since the ‘80s when multiple fuel pumps failed in Saudi Arabia from very hard jet fuel. Military engines put more stress on pumps than do commercial engines. Commercial Jet A/A1 does not routinely contain lubricity additive, though it is allowed.

[@cecilboatwright3555]

I know nothing about the systems on a MiG-23, but, just from a former tactical jet pilot perspective, it was SOUNDING like they had an engine fuel controller roll-back, and you confirm that here. I know some jets have controls that allow the pilot to bypass the fuel controller, and the power lever just becomes a direct fuel-metering control, but, from what you have here, it is impossible to tell if that is available with the '23. And that "pocket rocket" checklist page for the fuel controller issue would take FOREVER at low altitude if the pilot had not committed it to memory (treat the ENTIRE sequence as "boldface"). This was just a bad day with that airplane, but it could have gotten much worse for them and for bystanders on the ground!! Those ejection parameters SUCK (!!!) and shelling out WAS the correct thing to do (from what we see in the video, they were DAMN CLOSE to the lower extremes of the ejection envelope!!). I rode around on Martin-Baker seats in the T-2C, but "Zero-Zero" capable Douglas Escapac and then Stencel seats later on, so we COULD go lower and slower and still count on getting at least one swing in the chute. But IF the back seater pulled the handle in this instance, which it SOUNDS LIKE HE DID (him not remembering whether he did or not just is an indication that his previous military training kicked in.....in his famous dogfight with "Major Tomb" Duke Cunningham very methodically made all committed-to-memory checklist weapons voice calls, as can be heard on the recordings of the fight, but afterwards, he didn't remember doing ANY OF THAT because he was concentrating so much on the fight!), that was EXACTLY THE CORRECT THING TO DO. For you "armchair" and Microsoft fighter pilots out there, THIS SHIT HAPPENS FASTER THAN YOU CAN EVEN COME CLOSE TO FATHOMING when your butt is actually strapped to the airplane, and in a REAL AIRPLANE, the screen doesn't just turn red or show busted glass on your monitor and you restart and go back and try it again. Just an in-flight SIMULATED "flame out approach" (the High Key-Low Key descent profile to the runway....which tactical military pilots train CONSTANTLY) with a COMPLETELY HEALTHY jet is a VERY "STIMULATING" experience...it's like one of those "precision landings" at the fly-ins some of us go to, except instead of ALL of your "work" being in the last minute or so of the approach to your landing target at 30-50mph in your Champ or Cessna, your "work" is happening at 200 or more knots starting out directly above your point of intended landing from 10,000' OR MORE, and you are WORKING YOUR ASS OFF to hit the MANY parameters along the way in the 3000 or more FPM rate of descent in a CONSTANT TURN that has to be played out JUST RIGHT for your jet to cross the landing threshold with sufficient flying speed to complete a successful landing. NO INCIDENT is EVER AS EASY as it might have LOOKED on a video!! IF you feel compelled to "beat up" on the back seater with this accident, go beat yourself up for being a dunce. THANK YOU Juan for another EXCELLENT discussion!!!

[@BigDickMark]

What is high key and low key?

[@cecilboatwright3555]

@@BigDickMark The words "key," in this context, are "key positions" in your approach. "High key," or the "High Key Position" is a target position directly above your intended point of landing, and, in an ideal situation, with the aircraft travelling in the same direction as the direction of intended landing..."High Key" over any "Runway 18" would, basically be directly above the numbers of that particular Runway 18 on a 180 degree heading. The altitudes for the "Key Positions" are aircraft type-specific, because the glide characteristics and performance are slightly different for each aircraft. For the airplanes I flew in the Navy, "High Key" was at 10,000' AGL, because they all had similar gliding characteristics. From what Mr. Brown indicates here, the MiG's "High Key" was at 13,000' AGL. At "High Key" on the "normal" approach profile, a descending 180 degree turn is initiated, with the airspeed targeted at the predetermined best speed for your airplane (these are all parameters that are set forth in the pilot's operating instructions, and they are arrived at through EXTENSIVE flight testing...the NATOPS manual for us Navy guys). The descent rate is very typically between 3000 and 5000 fpm, depending upon the airplane. The "Low Key" position is typically "downwind, abeam the intended point of landing," and usually at about one half of the initial "High Key" altitude. "Low Key" is basically a "progress waypoint" for the pilot to judge how the approach is progressing, with parameters of distance abeam the intended landing point, airspeed, altitude above the touchdown elevation and airplane configuration all being specified in the applicable flight manual for that aircraft (again, numbers arrived at through EXTENSIVE FLIGHT TESTS) . From that "Low Key" position, the turn that was started at "High Key" is continued, arching around in a typically continual circular approach, with more parameters for the 3 "key" positions off of the "180" (those would be the "135," the "90," and the "45") also usually having specified parameters and aircraft configurations, before the airplane rolls into "the groove" in the short-final approach phase. The USAF and the FAA calls this an "SFO" -- a "Simulated Flame-Out Approach," as this was its original intended purpose....for a heavy "glides-like-a-pair-of-pliers" single-engine fighter to dead-stick from altitude to a safe landing on a runway. The USN calls it a "Precautionary Approach" (or "PA") profile, because the Navy has come to realize that there are far more emergency situations than just a flame-out where the profile comes in handy (USAF actually has figured this out too, but I CAN'T give them credit for that!). These descent profiles, as set forth in the flight operating instructions, are DESIGNED around "ideal" circumstances, and they usually have nice EASY TO REMEMBER speeds and altitudes. We ALL know, however, that REAL EMERGENCIES rarely happen under ideal circumstances, and, why military pilots practice these things SO MUCH, is so that the basic profile can be intercepted and picked up at ANY POINT in the basic circling descent profile set forth in the manual. For instance, me and my spiffy little jet aren't AT OR ABOVE prescribed "High Key" altitude when things start "going South"...on this potentially "bad day" we're at or slightly above "Low Key" altitude, but because I'm a USN JET JOCK I'm zipping around at the Speed of Heat (OH.....WAIT....DID I SAY THAT????....I'M CERTAINLY not exceeding 250KIAS below 10,000' !!!) when my shiny little jet engine starts getting....unwell. So I TRY to maintain my altitude by trading speed for maintaining altitude on the approach to the airfield by pointing the jet directly at "Low Key," and we pick up the approach profile from there, thereafter manipulating the descent and "playing" the turn to target hitting the remaining "key" parameters in the turn toward the runway threshold. Understand? It is a VERY BASIC set of maneuvers that EVERY tactical jet pilot becomes VERY practiced in, but, even on THE BEST OF DAYS with a COMPLETELY HEALTHY AIRPLANE, it is a VERY DYNAMIC and VERY FAST-PACED series of events that the pilot MUST BE ON TOP OF!!! Good day or bad day, in this series of maneuvers, you are intentionally pointing your airplane at the ground at a VERY HIGH RATE OF DESCENT and usually a pretty HIGH SPEED.....NOT a good situation to text in.......just saying....

[@BigDickMark]

@@cecilboatwright3555 Thank you for the very thorough response. I had to copy it into Word and make the font bigger so I could digest it all, but wow - 5000 fpm descent...I can't even begin to imagine!!

[@geckoproductions4128]

Very well done/interesting Juan. Thanks. BTW: you were a tweet IP. I worked for Link and installed the tweet and t-38 simulators at Randolph AFB. Got my SEL ticket at the aero club there. Best flight training a civilian could possibly get. High intensity jet traffic environment and my instructor started in B-29s and retired in B-52s. When I soloed, I was good to go!......but that was many years ago. Thanks again for the excellent job you're doing.

[@blackcar3540]

Juan We had a plane crash at KAPA today. Cesna 172S Skyhawk doing touch and go's. N number N20818 on rwy 17R Plane landed and flipped abt 3 miles south of airport on a golf course. Both student pilot and instructor are ok.

[@SteamCrane]

Good to hear!

[@JT-1969]

Juan, thank you for your insight on this accident and preliminary report. Glad there were two crew in this jet, and the back seater had the awareness of the situation, his actions saved their lives.

[@ScottySwans]

Very insightful, thanks for reporting. You're right, the prelim doesn't instill much confidence, but man does that angle of sink look hairy - miracle absolutely nobody was hurt on the ground

[@Mountain-Man-3000]

Yeah, at first blush I thought he'd ejected a bit premature. Watching it now, knowing what kind of ejection seats they had and the stall characteristics of the plane, with that sink rate... They might've had 1 more second before certain death.

[@michelebouvet8074]

I think you should announce your amazing credentials more often. Thank you for doing that.

[@patchmack4469]

that was an excellent account from Juan, knowing the pilots and their background, their ratings and training, history and so on builds a much clearer explanation to what goes on at a reducing speed and height of an aging fighter jet, clearly shown in the slow-mo footage - its still quite an interesting thing that in the US ejection seats remain in a working or functioning mode, using rockets only, i'm guess with no explosive charge in the gun to elevate and project the seat away from the plane i know myself from ex RAF pilots, particularly F4M pilots that the scenario is slightly different, the pilot will call eject, the rear seater bangs out leaving the pilot on board to ensure the plane comes down in non populated safe area etc - an example was a friend of mine banging out on route to land as another F4 collided with their tail fin, a little careless i know, but these things happen, every day is a test, my mate banged out, and the pilot managed to regain control and landed without his navigator, i never found out if their spoke again, i think with the old F4's especially the RAF type M's if the pilot bangs out, the navigator will follow automatically, as the timing of canopies, and seats make their exit, so front canopy, rear canopy, front seat, back seat, both the seats also have an angle set on the rockets which forces one seat to port and the other to starboard, even though they are a couple of seconds apart, this prevents possible collision which has happened before i also had the pleasure of knowing a great No1 Squadron pilot who had a flame out in a T2 Harrier GR1 trainer, the plane tried to kill him and his boss who was in the back seat, this was while flying to a target on the other side of some hills, the Pennines, the engine flamed out and began to lose height, before clearing the hills, it was touch and go, the boss was itching to go, while my dear friend calmly coxed the engine back to life, and control regain with less than 100 feet left between them and the hills at least if they did bang out, the boss was there to verify the accident, so many times its very hard for a pilot to explain losing a plane unless its during conflict when its pretty much expected

[@ITSFUNZ]

Well Explained, thanks Juan ! They were very lucky to get down safely ! From the camera angle you have it’s completely understandable 👍

[@iankemp2627]

The front seater was tunnel vision on resolving the engine issues, the back seater was eyes on the altitude and speed. Given the high sink rate and already low altitude in the video that Juan showed, the decision by the back seater to eject was 100% correct and saved both of their lives.

[@danbusey]

It is a pleasure to see and hear such a professional explanation. Thank you Juan!

[@bobsmythe9949]

Excellent commentary. Does seem the back-seater saved his mate's life.

[@seanmcerlean]

A flying brick in this case then Juan.😮 Sounds to me as the backseater called it correctly. Thanks as ever for your insights here.

[@malcolmyoung7866]

Great video Juan.. There are some very good historial Airforce and Navy training videos regards ejecting and when you need to be out and under canopy.. trouble shooting at low altitude can easily overwhelm a pilot and delay the inevitable decision to eject.. many have missed that opportunity..

[@matthewn1805]

Great explanation, thx. Given the time the pilot had in the chute looks like the rear seat made the right decision.

[@emiliodaddio8517]

This is the best analysis of this incident that I have come across. Thank you very much. Please keep up the good work.

[@FlyMIfYouGotM]

Looks like the back seat driver saved two lives!

[@deansawich6250]

Thanks for the very clear explanation of the event and the crew responsibilities.

[@michaelbrodsky]

I was born in Czechoslovakia. Perhaps you’ve heard of it. I have it on good authority that the incident was entirely caused by the name of the plane beginning with MiG.

[@leifvejby8023]

Sure know about Czechoslovakia, my dad even visited shortly after WWII, believe in 1947. You could very well be right about the reason for the incident! :-)

[@robertgaudet7407]

This was my boss’s conclusion as well