Mig23 Ejection Know When to Say When

[@mrhb4283]

Hi guys! Thank you for your kind words about our Russian ejection seat. I'm glad everything turned out positively. I served in the USSR Air Force in the 80s-90s. Mig-23 served until 87. Then Mig-29. In my unit there was only one case of ejection from a Mig-23. My commander lost consciousness in the air. Depressurization. After landing, he broke his legs and damaged his lungs. I can only say one thing that our engineers are very talented guys. They created one of the best ejection seats on the planet. Good luck to everyone and peace on earth. I wouldn’t want to meet you in an air battle) Respect to all colleagues!)

[@blancolirio]

Thanks for posting Scott! I'll link this to mine as well! JB.

[@Van_The_Man]

Thanks for the link Juan, otherwise I'd have missed it.

[@anthonycastellani7470]

Please post the remaining stories. As a member of the community here at kyip, a pilot and live a block from the airport, this truly was a miracle that there were not lives lost. Glad your here to shed light to what the reality is vs the arm chair pilots who think that they should have done different.

[@TechnologyRescue]

This was just absolutely riveting. I mean the human element was palpable as the mig rear seat pilot was recounting the events. Smart decision making as it saved two pilots and everyone on the ground.

[@BaumannJA]

THAT.... was a fantastic interview for many many reasons. Gunny, your experience is what allowed you to approach the subject matter from the best possible angle. Everything about the MiG 23 accident was simply a miracle. Safety Safety Safety. So much has to be taken into consideration no matter what you are flying. Never compromise.

[@bmw_m4255]

Bad idea to do this interview

[@tango_uniform]

Minor point of contention. There is no such event as an accident. They are referred to as mishaps. Everything that happens outside of the flight window has a cause. Mishap boards perform extensive investigation to find the root of mishaps. Every other finding is the fruit.

[@beachbum77979]

Thanks Scott. I'm not a pilot but I love aviation.I've followed your channel for quite a while and I've learned a lot from you. But this interview, this story, this pilot to pilot conversation takes it to a whole new level. Fighter jets aren't Cubs or 152s or Barons, Lears, Citations. Not B737s, 757s, 747s, 777s or any kind of Airbus. This interview was a real eye-opener for me. I bet it will be for pilots as well. Thanks again.

[@TheFrenchPug]

This was flipping awesome!!! You never hear about the experience you have to go through when ejected from a jet, or the technology behind it. So thankful they are both ok and nobody got taken out on the ground. So many things had to go right after it went wrong. Wow.

[@saintgiles]

Thanks!

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Thank you!

[@robertpatric6652]

Likey the best interview and in depth discussion of things I’ve never known or considered in jet ejections. Brilliant job and congratulations to Mark on his timely decision to have both pilotssurvive.

[@VACatholic]

The fact that you had the testicular fortitude to tell him he waited too long after all of that, and he had the magnanimity to agree is really heartwarming. Thank you.

[@Shaky_Hands_Powderworks]

Great interview and explanation. This guy did everything right and saved them both. That Mig was doomed way before they punched out.

[@BostonBuzz]

Seriously? There was still time to find a safe crash site. This guy panicked and ejected too soon. And the ejection decision was not his to make.

[@jimmyoverly3512]

@@BostonBuzz How do you know this? What data and analysis did you do to reach this conclusion? How much time do you have in the MiG-23?

[@thereissomecoolstuff]

@@jimmyoverly3512 how much time do you have in one. This will always be debated. There is still another story to tell. He is alive and no one died that’s the only positive.

[@Derek-b8q]

Probably not flying a MIG 23 in the first place would have been the safest course.

[@jimmyoverly3512]

@@thereissomecoolstuff I have none. I never claimed to have any and I made no comments about the pilots' decisions. What's your problem?

[@astircalix4126]

Scott, as a fighter pilot, I value your knowledge and experience of having flown high performance military aircraft. You have explained the basics nub in such depth that anyone would only need to wear a G suit to have a ride in a heavy jet fighter. It has been very well explained all the sequence of Mig23 ejection . Thanks Scott and Mark!!

[@bmw_m4255]

He's not a fighter pilot

[@astircalix4126]

@@bmw_m4255 thanks .

[@shadowfaxcrx5141]

@@bmw_m4255 Just because he retired from being a fighter pilot doesn't mean he's forgotten what being a fighter pilot involves.

[@freema22]

Great interview. Thanks for posting this. I was firmly in the camp of “someone owes someone a new plane” based on the prelim report. I was wrong and am glad you posted this interview.

[@andremichau2455]

Sir, I suggest it prudent to wait for the ntsb report before making conclusions.

[@bmw_m4255]

This guy is trying to get ahead of a lawsuit with this interview

[@mondotv4216]

@@bmw_m4255 What do you base that rather inflammatory comment on?

[@aceshigh6499]

This is an amazing interview. Extremely informative. Pilot observer absolutely made the RIGHT decision.

[@randyeno2525]

Absolutely stunning interview. Scott you did a great job of setting up the situation and then coming back to hammer the points about the envelope available and the criticality of situational awareness and hard altitudes. They were enormously fortunate that the seats sequenced automatically given the late ejection initiation. What a heads up and life saving gdecision to initiate the ejection from the back seat! Thanks for posting this. It should be a required case study video for any aviator flying tactical jets with ejection seats!

[@BostonBuzz]

You can tell from all available vids that the plane had enough altitude, and a stall was NOT imminent. The pic was scanning for a safe crash site, and he only needed another 1-2 secs to do that. The ejection was WAY premature, and the observer put his own life ahead of others on the ground. Shame......

[@nethoncho]

This is an awesome interview

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Thanks, I appreciate that!

[@gtr1952]

Thanks Scott, and a huge thanks to Mark for being willing to talk to us about it!! I'd love to see/hear more! I never flew fighters, and at 71 I'm not doing it now. I have friends that did though, and I've heard a lot of stories. I have max respect for anyone who has set foot in one of those things!! 8-[ --gary

[@gascan1201]

Glad I found this channel. Dad flew F-4s, and I grew up around them. I hate to see this happen (The loss of the MiG), but thankful that no loss of life occured.

[@HMac411]

Outstanding interview and very illuminating. As you know, the initial media implications were that the back-seater panicked and pulled the get-out handle prematurely while the pilot was still working the problem. This interview was a very complete and concise explanation, from aerodynamics to aftermath and completely dispelled that line of thinking. And I can't think of any better forum for this discussion that your channel, Scott. Well done. The presentation also clearly illustrated why your average GA pilot has no concept of the relationship between a supersonic fighter aircraft and a Cessna.

[@wirdy1]

As an ex-maintainer, I can well appreciate the relief/pride that will be experienced by the ejection seat techs who maintained & installed those bang-seats. I was always told that MB were the best, when maintained correctly, but on this occasion I must admit those Russian seats & the aircraft-side crew escape hardware functioned extremely well in the circumstances.

[@mortcs]

Thanks for the interview, im glad both pilots are alive and no bystanders were injured. I have been seeing a lot of reports of fatal crashes this last year that look like the pilots were more focused on saving the plane than staying alive. We need to start hammering the idea into GA pilots heads that the plane is disposable when it comes to saving lives.

[@greymann]

What are you talking about? The vast majority of pilots don't have the option of bailing out.

[@beachbum77979]

@@greymann We know that most pilots don't have the option to bail like Trevor Jacob did. Some only have a choice between flying straight ahead or attempting the "impossible turn" back to the airport. Some make a choice to turn in the direction of a failed engine. But this aircraft had ejection seats, kinda different than GA or even commercial aviation. And "Get there itis" has led to some bad decisions too.

[@haroldtanner9600]

@@greymannI think he’s talking about knowing your equipment and its capabilities and limitations and doing some “What if this happens.” well in advance of engine start. Some have ejection seat options and some don’t, but all equipment has capabilities and limitations and the better the user understands them the better the chance for a good outcome.

[@CharlieRowell-u2d]

Mark! I’ve been watching for anything from you or Dan. I own the boat that brought Dan to the dock. Thank God you guys are ok! Glad to see you look a little better than the last time I saw you!

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Go to my website flywire . online and send me an email please.

[@jamieknight326]

Astonishing interview. It’s so valuable to hear the story and the context first hand. I think Mark’s been given a hard time on other channels but it sounds like he saved them both. At the point he pulled the handle there wasn’t anything to do to protect folks on the ground. The plane simply didn’t have the energy needed to provide options. Thanks for this interview. It’s exceptionally useful to learn about the situation, the process and injuries. I wish Dan and Mark a speedy recovery.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Thanks! And you are exactly right.

[@LizMatzelle]

Sure, he saved them both. By putting directly in danger dozens of lives on the ground. Is that actually the right call? How do you justify excusing yourself from the consequences of your own decision to strap into that jet, by directing a literal bomb at the homes of innocent people?

[@dirkmohrmann8960]

@@LizMatzelle The point is that the bomb is already directed at the homes. From the description, the aircraft had essentially no more maneuvering capabilities at the time of ejection and was in the middle of stalling. Whether the pilots are inside or outside of the aircraft does not change that.

[@LizMatzelle]

@@dirkmohrmann8960 There is your misunderstanding. The fact that the aircraft was experiencing buffet does NOT mean the aircraft was fully stalled and uncontrollable. The wing does not stall all at once along its entire length. They still had full control of the aircraft. They could have released back pressure and gained even more control had they needed it.

[@CAPFlyer]

@@LizMatzelle Then you clearly didn't listen to what he said or watched the video and annotations about how quickly that airplane was descending and where it was. There was no where else they could make it go at that point. They had *maybe* 3 seconds to punch out or just everyone die (including probably people on the ground).

[@AlyssaM_InfoSec]

Love this interview, this explanation, and the guts of this pilot to be here talking about it right now. Sadly I did see another KZbin back-seat quarterbacking this and suggesting it was wrong to initiate the ejection in the way it was done. So glad you gave him a voice here Scott to set the record straight and put real info out there.

[@fast_richard]

Dan is also a good man, but he is not a supersonic jet jock. He is a bit out of his wheelhouse trying to analyze this particular event. Scott is the ideal person to get some perspective on what happened here. This is why I pay attention to more than one source of information.

[@WarblesOnALot]

@@fast_richard G'day, I'm thinking that Dan maybe got his perception from what Ward Carroll Channel posted, Very soon after the prang. Ward is a retired US Navy GIB. Very proud of his Carrier Fighter status, Talks a lot. Says 10 or 20 "when I flew off Carriers...", for every "when I was a Backseater on a Carrier Squadron..." ; kinda thing. Ward reacted to the Prelim. report as if it were Gospel & Verbatim ; and opined that when he was a Backseater if his Pilot said he was busy Troubleshooting then he wouldn't have triggered an Ejection Until He was Told What to do. If Ward had been in the Mig's backseat, then both of them might well be dead, apparently. Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !

[@louissanderson719]

⁠@@fast_richarddoes it really take a jet Jock to realise you’re about to stall?

[@fast_richard]

@@WarblesOnALot I think both Ward Carroll and Dan Gryder put too much faith in the NTSB prelim report, probably independently of each other. The NTSB might have people who know the parameters of ejection seat performance, but I doubt any were involved in the prelim report. I certainly don't have that knowledge, which is why I listen to those who do. I'm more disappointed In Ward Carroll as he should know something about ejection seat deployment parameters, although he probably only knows the seats from the F-14.

[@fast_richard]

@@louissanderson719 No, it takes someone with operational knowledge of that class of aircraft to explain why they were almost too late to successfully eject. A couple of seconds delay would have been fatal.

[@dogfoodking]

This interview blew me away. Amazing how early reports can lead to a different view of the event. Thanks Scott. 33 Charlie is looking great!

[@publicclammer]

Perhaps the most intelligent and revealing interview and conversation that I've ever heard. Thank you both!

[@Wild_Bill57]

Failing upward (literally) though succeeding to stay alive (a total success) makes you famous and interesting. Thanks for the interview and we are totally envious of you.

[@alrivas1477]

Wow ! Remember seeing this on the news but wow to hear it directly, just wonderful. Great aviator.

[@Loglakeliving]

Terrific interview. Set the record straight. No margin for interpretation on this one… maybe one second away from disaster…too close. Thank God; no one was hurt on the ground.

[@RubyS.1]

I appreciate Scott pulling out the manual and making it absolutely clear that the ejection was the correct decision. Good stuff

[@bmw_m4255]

He shouldn't have done the interview

[@BostonBuzz]

You can tell from all available vids that the plane had enough altitude, and a stall was NOT imminent. The pic was scanning for a safe crash site, and he only needed another 1-2 secs to do that. The ejection was WAY premature, and the observer put his own life ahead of others on the ground. Shame......

[@bmw_m4255]

@@BostonBuzz they are both alive which is good, but it was luck. The guy has no view in the back. he's not rated in the aircraft. and its very odd to do an interview while theres a pending investigation. I feel like he's trying to get in front of something he did wrong. and notice the real pilot stays silent. anyway, i doubt the couldve recovered the aircraft , but you can see it continued to fly for a while before they crashed. but the ejection envelope isn't very forgiving. He probably did the right thing in the end but the whole situation is bizzare

[@bmw_m4255]

@@BostonBuzz how can an unrated pilot be telling the PIC what to do? seems strange.

[@shadowfaxcrx5141]

@@BostonBuzz You're spending a lot of time in this comment section trying to crap all over the back seater. Whatever your motivation for that, you should probably know that it tells everyone else that you have an ulterior motive.

[@shenandoahhills7263]

Scott, by far the best episode to date. Kudos to Mark for being so honest and straight forward in reviewing the train of thought leading to the ejection. Sounds like he saved Dan's and his own life by making a difficult split-second decision. Dan did the right thing by choosing Mark to monitor and advise from the back seat.

[@BostonBuzz]

"Honest and straightforward"?? This was a CYA interview and that's all. All decisions should have been made by the pic.

[@SPD_driver]

There's 2 of them in that airframe for a reason. And this isn't military, so if either one didn't trust the other one WITH THEIR LIFE, they wouldn't (and shouldn't) have been flying together. End of day, pilot was likely task saturated running his checklists and working the issues, and rightfully trusted his backseater. Pilot did some of the things backseater called out (while still doing his stuff) so there was obviously trust there. So much to take in, in a short period. Be interesting to hear what the pilot's SA was... running the checklists, maybe concerned about ground casualties? Obviously missed the energy state and sink rate, or it was lower priority. Good show tho, worked the problem, trusted each other, and for the most part did the aviate, navigate, communicate right.

[@johncox4273]

@@BostonBuzzNot really. If things get this bad and the front seater is preoccupied for whatever reason, Mark has every right to punch out and save both of their lives. Most two man military fighter operations say either crew member can make that decision.

[@bmw_m4255]

@@BostonBuzz yeah why is an unrated back seater telling the pilot what to do.

[@bmw_m4255]

@@johncox4273 most fighters when you punch out it doesn't punch the other guy out

[@Steelrailbearing]

Please publish the remaining 20 minutes. This was the fastest 52 minute video I've ever watched on YT.

[@tailwheel]

Very high quality analysis Scott. Thanks a lot for sharing your knowledge and for getting one of the crew members to share his firsthand experiences.

[@MsFireboy2]

I have this saying when in doubt punch out. I want to congratulate both pilots. Your timing was spot on. Thank you all for serving. And thanks for posting.

[@mmrd50112]

Did anyone else note that Mark Ruff only refers to Dan Filer as "He" or "The owner"? (11:29 "Dan" slipped out once but Mark corrected himself as it were, to "The owner") I'm intrigued to know why. Scott doesn't refer to him by name either! Legal reasons?

[@stefanschutz5166]

It struck me too.

[@robsmith7681]

Very informative. We live about a mile from where they ejected. My girlfriend was outside and heard the seats go off. Nice to put a face to the tragedy and am hopeful to see them in the air again. 💪🏽

[@SteepTurn]

What an incredible story, I really dived emotional into it. First time I heard those details about ejection seats, envelope parameters etc. And yes any more infromation is appreciated, so please publish it! Greets and best wishes from EDDH!

[@av8ir68]

Wow, thanks Scott, excellent interview and incredibly thankful those two gentlemen are ok!!!!!

[@brantleycoile]

Well done. Best coverage of the '23 event that I've seen. I would love to see the other 20 minutes. Very educational. Thank, Scott.

[@FlywithMagnar]

Thank you for sharing this interview. I can only image how difficult it is to make the decision to eject, because you want to save the aircraft.

[@bobh6728]

I left a long comment basically saying that the safety of the public needs to come way before saving the aircraft. Public first, crew second, plane a distant third.

[@jefferybowman1649]

Please run the other other 20 min. of that conversation Scott. One hell of a story...thank you.

[@appaho9tel]

Scott, I agree with you on ejecting, in your video a screen shot shows the seat envelop is 2000 AGL so 800 is way low. What I find interesting is he states many times that he told the pilot what to do, lower flaps, move wings forward. As if he was an instructor. That seems odd to me.

[@vedeved5246]

Exactly, he is lying. Don't you find that strange that he remembers everything except who used the exection ? Plus put flaps all the way down with a broken engine is very stupid. Plus he is talking wayyyyyy to much to the pilot before, it's distracting. You are right for me he was in a mindset of an instructor when he wasn't and that's very dangerous.

[@trouty7947]

​@@vedeved5246also he didn't mention anything about the pilot troubleshooting, and mentioning the fuel issue and his fix

[@dougranz4517]

Thank you, Gunny.

[@itsPlanesUSA]

Praying for a speedy recovery and the pilots return to the skies. Great interview, thank you for sharing the experience

[@arthurpearson3407]

Great interview Scott. It’s amazing that they survived that ejection under the circumstances. It will be interesting to see what the investigation uncovers. Good to hear from the horses mouth rather than just snippets of supposition. Keep up the great work😉

[@coreyfeil3709]

Great interview and a great example of crew resource management and having the right person in the back seat monitoring and making the correct and difficult decision to eject.

[@bradmarcum2927]

Contrarily, I saw NO CRM.

[@mundlkalli4396]

First off all I am glad that both of you came out alive from this hell ride. I am hoping both of you are making a great recovery from your injuries. The way you told your story was so detailed and informative that at times i felt i was in that seat(I know sounds total off the wall). But thats what I felt...mixed with anxiety. I am not a pilot,but love aviation . thank you again for this breath taking story !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@donc9751]

Awesome interview and im glad we got to hear Mark's story from Mark and that he and the pilot are OK (i hope their spines are!) and no injuries/fatalities on the ground to either people or structures!!! I definately am interested in hearing the rest of his story! I wondered if the owner might have been wanting to hang on to try saving his plane because obviously its a huge investment, but best to let it go and get the heck out of it while the getting is good!!!

[@2days2cents]

Thank you so much for sharing this story; it was an amazing miracle that both pilots survived and no structure or person on the ground was affected by the loss of the aircraft, which was truly another blessing!

[@robbyowen9107]

THANK YOU for this incredible video!!!! So thankful Mark and Dan were able to make it out and survive at the last possible moment. VERY MUCH appreciate you sharing your story Mark!! And YES PLEASE publish the other stories!!

[@akrammy9251]

Thanks for the great interview

[@ronnl001]

Best video from you to date Scott (not to denigrate your other videos in the least). Glad to hear the real story - quite a different picture than the prelim. Thank you for what you do.

[@jamieknight326]

Can’t wait to hear part 2. Please share the rest. It’s an incredible resource.

[@sanderruscigno]

Waiting for the part 2... Great interview and explanation and I'm happy to know both are well and healthy

[@bobwilson758]

I am so glad nobody on the ground got smashed/ burnt - up ! Amazing good luck .

[@trunkmonkey9417]

Retired USAF Crew Chief and flying crewmember. I am glad Mark Ruff was bold enough to have SA, make the callouts and the decision as he did. And very good call to get out in front of the mishap and express all the baggage both Mark Ruff and Dan Filer carried away from the event. I recalled how a lot of similar events were carried quietly by those affected, and the greater damage that remained for it. May you both heal fast and fully, and Severe Blue to you both in the future.

[@dan96b6]

This was great, because a lot of aviation channels have been low-key shitting on this guy based on the preliminary report. Way to the get the first-hand account.

[@johnmcme7780]

I have watched several analysis of the situation prior. Hearing it straight from the horse’s mouth has certainly cleared up any ambiguity. Thank you Scott, for bringing Mark on to explain the real situation. I guess the owner also has a subliminal interest in his investment, namely to save the MIG, which may subconsciously interfere with decision making in such a rare occurrence. Mark when you pulled the ejection handle, with less than 2 seconds to a most likely fatal, you gave both of you the best ‘investment’ possible, your lives. Well done, unfortunately is an understatement.

[@BostonBuzz]

The "horses mouth"???? The horses mouth is the pic's mouth!! So you've heard nothing, yet. You can tell from all available vids that the plane had enough altitude, and a stall was NOT imminent. The pic was scanning for a safe crash site, and he only needed another 1-2 secs to do that. The ejection was WAY premature, and the observer put his own life ahead of others on the ground. Shame......

[@tomastuharsky]

I am so glad you're alive - and in good shape regarding the circumstances!

[@dermick]

Great interview - this one will be seen by everyone. It's excellent that this pilot went from goat to GOAT! Great work, Scott!

[@bobbyt2012]

What an absolutely riveting conversation. Couple of solid dudes here.

[@tomwilson1006]

People need to realize you CANNOT compare a GA aircraft to a military jet and their emergency procedures. These gentleman were literally seconds from being part of the fireball if they didn’t get out when they did. Luckily NOBODY on the ground was injured or killed. Praying for a speedy recovery for both of these men!

[@slartybarfastb3648]

The pilot apparently disagreed with that assessment.

[@ahabf15e]

@@slartybarfastb3648 that was from his initial statement. Over time the math discussed in this video will be come known and the fact there was no possibility for an airstart (according to these statements)

[@bronco5334]

@@ahabf15e 1) They didn't need an airstart. The engine wasn't dead, it wasn't producing thrust, but it was still running. The most likely mechanism is that they selected afterburner, the engine controller opened the exhaust feathers, but failed to ignite the afterburner burner can. If you open the nozzle to full and DON'T have afterburner, it causes a pressure drop at the exhaust and robs you of thrust. That is, in fact, the difference between ground idle and flight idle: in ground idle, that's how the aircraft prevents rolling forward: it opens the nozzle full up to reduce nozzle pressure. Watch a video of modern fighter jets on the ground; you will see that during startup, the nozzle opens to full, constricts when the pilot pushes the throttle to taxi, then opens full again when they pull to idle to stop the aircraft. In that case, all the pilot needed to do was go to idle on the throttle, hit the manual afterburner reset, and wait a few seconds for the nozzle to constrict, at which point thrust returns. Literally nothing in any of the information released so far indicates the engine was actually dead. 2) ""the math discussed" is largely based on assertions from the backseater, and there are some indications he's not telling the entire truth (or simply has faulty perceptions); his initial statements were a real mess, and there are some major indications of massive CRM issues on this flight. The aircraft doesn't have a flight data recorder, so a lot of his claims frankly cannot be verified- most significantly, there is no way to verify his claims about the engine status

[@andremichau2455]

That nobody on the ground was killed is indeed lucky. 3 more seconds at the controls would have assured that. This, and confusion as to who was the pilot in control, are my concerns.

[@thermicdude9164]

At that point, there was no chance of redirecting the aircraft, there was no energy left. Trying to maneuver would have hastened the impact. The backseater made a 100% correct call on initiating the ejection - that was HIS job.

[@jmevb60]

Starting with a description of the weight and speed of military jets was inspired. Your depth of knowledge is astounding

[@jed1947]

Great information - I now have situational awareness about what happened to these pilots!

[@cturdo]

Thanks for getting the first-hand information! What a refreshing and professional presentation on this event.

[@tombowers3681]

The real question I have is if it's really wise to be operating this type of an aircraft at low altitude for flight displays? It's a high altitude interceptor and by operating it for a pretty air show pass you are giving the crew no option in the event of any issue

[@andrewwaller5913]

Bit pointless flying it at 25,000ft at an airshow 😂

[@tombowers3681]

true, but maybe it's the airshow that's pointless and dangerous. Its only pure luck that nobody on the ground was killed in their home @@andrewwaller5913

[@tomblack9401]

Scott, fantastic job of trying to explain the realities of ejection seats and high-performance (fighter) aviation. Some people will listen and get it, some people will refuse to listen. Illegitimi non carborundum.

[@Andy-rk9mu]

Thank you. Please post extra material ...

[@garydwater2112]

I’ve got 40 years as a pilot, and I’m amazed those guys survived that event. I watched your whole video and I believe you said you would post another 20 minutes if there was enough interest; I’m interested in watching more of this incredible story. In addition, I’m a retired Air Force pilot, so could you please share the story on the recent T38 accident?

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

I’ll post it and look into the T38C crash. Thanks.

[@ahabf15e]

@@FlyWirescottperdueawesome interview with the GIB (it doesn’t sound like he was a professional WSO?) who did a great job. Obviously more information to come out but this is solid analysis. Miss flying with you Gunny!!

[@tango_uniform]

Mishap, not accident

[@GlideYNRG]

Thank you to the both of you for this interview Scott. Look forward to seeing the rest.

[@stefanschutz5166]

Indeed, what a hell of a story. And what an impressive, articulate, modest and sympathetic pilot. Hat off! Of course it must be equally fascinating to hear the other flyer’s perspective. I was surprised to hear that the NTSB spoke with these men whilst they were in great pain and sedated, even if they consented. Is this normal procedure? Best wishes to all of you from Amsterdam and thank you for posting this amazing interview. Best wishes to

[@stefanschutz5166]

Delete last three words.

[@hefeibao]

It's a testament to their training that they can deliver this information and in Mark's case a traumatic event, so clearly and precisely. Outstanding professionalism and airmanship.

[@bmw_m4255]

He's trying to get ahead of a lawsuit

[@jmobbinfoo4838]

​@@bmw_m4255 what happened that would justify a lawsuit?!?!?! Nobody was injured and very minimal property damage for a military jet accident.

[@toddl143]

Amazing story. What a professional! I am speechless.

[@SigisTravelVideos]

Great interview Scott! And Mark, great decision making 👍

[@noyfub]

Great interview. Great insight into flying the Big Iron. Publish the rest of it please.

[@ve7pke]

Great interview Scott. Not a pilot but lots of valuable lessons to be learned. Please post the other contest.

[@2Phast4Rocket]

Great discussion on the ejection envelope. As with the Cirrus pilots, they found out that some pilots deployed the BRS parachute too late and the new training teaches the Cirrus owners when they should deploy the BRS

[@Wallywarwally]

Great interview very good info as to the sequence of events….great to hear the thought process that went into the decision to eject…bravo to the gentleman for making a decision that probably saved both their lives

[@thomascharlton8545]

Thanks Scott. That was intense. Would be interesting to hear the front seat owners perspective.

[@CrissWahl]

Great interview and a great education.

[@wayneroyal3137]

What a story, glad that they both survived the mishap and no injuries on the ground. Please do post the remaining 20 minutes.

[@Mountain-Man-3000]

Glad to see Mark's doing well!!

[@larryegilman1]

Scott, please publish the remainder of the interview, and thank you for your professional pursuit of the truth and story surrounding the event!

[@sjpeckham1]

Amazing quality of presentation; keep these coming sir.

[@andremichau2455]

I can't wait for the ntsb report.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

I expect you’ll see it in two years.

[@andybeckett4480]

As always Scott, a well conceived and presented interview. It was very fortunate that both occupants survived and that there were no ground injuries or fatalities. We had a tragic case in the UK in 2015 where a 1950's Hawker Hunter at an airshow attempted to pull out of a loop with insufficient altitude and energy and crashed onto a main road killing 11 and injuring 15. The pilot remained in the aircraft and remarkably survived the crash. I don't know whether the Hunter had a functioning ejector seat, but even if it did it would have likely been of little use given the vintage of the aircraft and the situation. In this instance at least, the pilot remaining in the plane did not prevent or even mitigate consequent ground fatalities and injuries.

[@thompson37]

That was a fascinating interview, thank you. I would love to see the other 20 minutes.

[@scottbeyer101]

This accident would make a great documentary. Oh wait. I just saw THE documentary on this accident. Why the engine quit is ancillary. How the crew responded matters more. All the best to the crew on their recovery.

[@woodrow7201]

Awesome share. So happy you're good Mark.

[@keithkornatoski9162]

Thank You Mr Ruff and Mr Purdue .... something I will remember for a long long time ...Scary Stuff ... Keith Chicago IL

[@budyeddi5814]

Loved this interview Scott!! Was great to hear Mark describe what was going on, the though process and the events following the punch out. Definitely seems like a solid guy that was aware of the BAD situation and made the right choice. Thank God nobody was killed on the ground as well Also YES, we absolutely want the additional 20mins of stories ^_^

[@kevingeary1472]

As a student pilot this was extremely interesting and insightful. Good decision making. Interesting points on how private owners usually ride their jets into the ground and looks like that would have happened again. Understandable with the attachment to the aircraft and cost as well as the compressed time as they sink and the altitude ejection requirements.

[@tombowers3681]

The NTSB should really be held to account for sending out a preliminary report that was so poorly written and worded as to make it seem that errors were made

[@ahabf15e]

FAASteam member here. The NTSB did it’s job. Remember they only report the facts in the preliminary and not assessment at this time. The public is going off on wild conclusions not understanding the full analysis.

[@tombowers3681]

@@ahabf15e I disagree, they framed the preliminary report in a way, either intentionally or accidentally i to make it seem that there was a lack of communication in the aircraft, and an absence of coordination between the crew members resulting in a crew member ejecting prematurely. There was little else presented by the NTSB preliminary. I've been reading the preliminary reports by NTSB for a while now concerning all kinds of incidents. If they have nothing to say they say nothing. If they strongly suspect a proximate cause, they will such as in the instance of an engine out they will mention the lack of fuel in the tanks right in the preliminary report. In this instance they felt the need to highlight their interpretation of what the crew told them and frame it in a way to make it seem that the back seater punched them out prematurely. That is, I"m sure, why scott felt the need to put up this video with an interview with the back seater and why he agreed to the interview. NTSB should be accountable for damaging his reputation with what was at best a poorly worded preliminary report and at worst a hatchet job aimed at the back seater. If you disagree with me fine, but with just what you know from the preliminary try rewriting it to reflect only the facts and you'll see what I mean

[@blarsen8]

Errors were made

[@bennyhill5938]

here from the ward caroll live stream about this. he still seems skeptical about if he was right to punch out when he did or not

[@grouchyoldman7397]

As an eyewitness to the crash,I now have an understanding of what my eyes observed and saw . Thank you Scott

[@cabanford]

Great interview. Thanks for letting him tell his story without interrupting all the time. ❤

[@dgs0011]

Look forward to more updates

[@killroy1015]

Great story with extraordinary educational value. Thank you gentleman.

[@PAA2FLY]

I’m happy he’s alive to tell the story!

[@alscustomerservice187]

Excellent interview!

[@thomsghost769]

Emotion. It really guides the story narrative for human story consumption. Nice.