New Details Emerge on the MiG-23UB Mishap - Backseater/Observer Speaks!

[@CAPFlyer]

I need to stand up for one thing on this because I feel like it's not well addressed in videos, but is fairly common knowledge within the community. While Mark doesn't have a type rating, he *is* trained on the MiG-23 and has been training for some time. He was in the back seat so he could get the hours needed by the FAA and insurance to get rated because they require front and back seat time to get the letter(s). Also, he's one of the lead S-211 instructors with a group based in North Texas and seems to be pretty well liked overall. I agree him doing this interview is odd, but it's enlightening as to what was going on from a technical point of view about what the limitations of the seat are, what the plane was actually doing and such and downplay his statements about what he and/or the pilot were doing. Him being in the Back Seat is where he's used to, being the IP, being the back seat, being the guy who's observing and feeding info to the front seat guy who should be focusing on flying the plane. If you watch any good videos of flying any of the former Eastern Bloc aircraft, that's how they all train the back seats to be. I didn't get deeply into training before I had to step away from that group back in 2005-2006, but I keep up with a few of them and what Mark talks about is pretty consistent with how the training is done for these planes. I also highly suggest watching the other video of what happened to that MiG (that's linked from Scott's video) with the prior engine rollback. There are some interesting things to note there as well that play into what both Dan and Mark were likely thinking at the time.

[@recoilrob324]

If you watch the video of the ejection....the front seat guy barely got one swing in a fully inflated 'chute before hitting the water. The ejection sequence was started within one or two seconds tops of the front seat guy dying. The rear seat observer was well versed in the aircraft and the ejection sequencing and knew that he had to go a little early to save the pilot who might have wanted to wait until the last instant to eject but failing in that moment to remember that the back seat would go first and delay his ejection for about two seconds...which he didn't have. He HAD turned the aircraft away from the apartment building best as he could which is why it hit beside it and not directly into it. Under the circumstances it really does look like they did the best they could IMHO. It's likely the owner isn't speaking yet due to insurance and liability issues until the case is put to bed by the authorities while the back seat guy can speak without liability and seems to offer a reasonable and professional account of the accident. While the pilot is trying to fly the aircraft away from things on the ground it would be nice to have someone in back calling out airspeeds and offering instructions according to those airspeeds where the wings should be and such which was why he was there.

[@Wannes_]

Ruff made the right call There's about 10s between front canopy coming off (ejection sequence takes about 2,5s) and impact - and that's 800 lbs or so lighter with both of them out They were never gonna make it back

[@michaelterfehr9121]

There should be no training going on during an airshow.

[@zohrab22]

According to another civilian MiG-23 pilot, the wing sweep indicator in the front seat was inop and Mark was in the back seat to monitor it.

[@Wannes_]

@@zohrab22 If that's indeed the case, the NTSB / FAA is probably not going to like it ...

[@kevinmadore1794]

In all of the discussions about the back-seater and what he should or should not have done, I think we are overcomplicating the picture. The simple truth is that the back-seater was an experienced pilot who clearly was pretty familiar with the flight characteristics and systems on the Flogger, and he may indeed have had more SA than the pilot did, because he was not burdened with aircraft control, nor did he own the aircraft. The latter is a consideration that military fighter pilots never have to worry about. From the perspective of the back-seater, things were really pretty simple: 1. From the engine gauges and the pilot's throttle movements, the engine was not producing any significant amount of thrust 2. The altitude was significantly below 1,000 AGL, well below that necessary for a relight or a flame-out approach 3. The airspeed was falling through 190 KIAS and the rumble of the airflow over the wings indicated an approaching loss of control 4. They were rapidly approaching the bottom of the envelope for the K-1 seats they were in. BANG! We're alive! He made the only decision left available, no matter what the pilot may have been thinking or not thinking. I fully suspect that the back-seater came forward for this interview because he felt that he was taking a beating from the armchair investigators on the internet, and his attorneys may have been concerned about potential liability, so he wanted to get out ahead of any potential actions like that by making clear to the public just how desperate their situation was. I've never flown a fighter, but I am a 6,000 hr pilot and I have seen the videos and I listened to the entire interview twice. The man makes a compelling case for his actions. As it was, the front-seat pilot was only on his chute for just a few seconds before he was in the lake. If the back-seater had delayed his actions much longer, the front-seater and perhaps both of them would be dead today. All of these internet arguments are kind of pointless.

[@alboreland5949]

in one aviation page everyone tore him a new one, I also think the interview is a response to that.

[@JoeThePilot]

@Kevin, You pretty much said what I was thinking. If everything that the backseater said about the energy state of that aircraft is true (BTW, he sounded pretty credible to me), then he absolutely did the right thing and saved them both. Period. One caveat is that I have zero time riding an ejection seat, nor have I been trained to use one. I cannot speak to the operational or even moral decision about their use when anywhere near people or structures, so my only comment about that will be that the overwhelming majority of people who make comments about operational or moral decisions of said seats have neither been trained to use them, or have had their ass in the seat. But, such is the internet 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@annone6462]

@@JoeThePilot the story Marky concocted was CYA fiction to cover him from fault.

[@bluehornet6752]

On the Blancolirio channel (I think it was) it was mentioned that the back-seater in this incident was in preparation to take the check ride in a Mig-23 as well. It was also mentioned that this same aircraft apparently had an incident where the fuel controller malfunctioned, and the IP (who was NOT this back-seater, but who was in the back seat training the owner on that flight) took control. It was reportedly during a simulated flame-out landing procedure, and they were able to get the thing re-lit and then land. Problem is, the altitude that the engine power was lost was not mentioned. The last thing to say here is that this same aircraft was at EAA this past year, and lost part of its canopy during a flight. So at the end of the day, I suspect there is a LOT more to this story than we know now--from both cockpits.

[@harveywallbanger3123]

I like Juan's channel a lot but at least half the purpose of his channel is reacting angrily to Dan Gryder. Gryder immediately came out for the pilot, so Juan immediately came out for the un-typed "observer".

[@Drewairplane]

@@harveywallbanger3123Gryder posts knee jerk reaction videos always having to blame somebody with little to no (or even worse wrong) information. Juan shows a lot more restraint and fairness in the way he puts together his videos in my personal opinion.

[@daszieher]

I dislike both Juan's and Dan's channels. They are surely both qualified and capable, however , there's too much "content creation", too much: "you heard it here first!" going on. They should take a few pages out of Mover's and Gonky's book and exercise some restraint.

[@Triple_J.1]

@@daszieher the USAF folks have an appreciation for "Quiet Professionalism". Any channel dedicated to covering Aviation accidents is inherently oriented to covering them immediately with little information beyond the news media. The NTSB preliminary reports come out about a week later, long after those folks first videos. And the official NTSB reports are typically delayed 2 years or more after all the fact finding. One thing you'll never hear on a YT channel is what the NTSB investigators notepad and interview voice recorder contains. Ever. Don't subscribe to ambulance chasers, especially those who purport to be aviation safety advocates. Most of them cant even side-slip to an off-airport landing in the event of an engine failure themselves.

[@Scott11078]

Mooches KZbin channel he's an F-14 RIO did a video on this. Definitely check it out and not take my word, if I remember correctly the guy that was in the backseat training this guy said they were at 14k feet.

[@SportDCS]

If you look at the ejection envelope for the MiG-23 (which is the same seat as the MiG-21) they were at the bottom of it. Had the backseater not pulled the handle, I fully believe the owner would have rode it into the ground. I think we’re getting too hung up on the backseater “not being qualified”

[@Triple_J.1]

The real issue is how he conducted himself after the incident that raises questions...

[@NATES84]

Grade the guy on what he did which saved the day with no time left. Not if he spoke right or wrong or at all later on .There are a lot of legal sharks out there and he wanted to avoid them in his future. As in "I am not the owner or the pilot."

[@FirstDagger]

I love Gonky having a proper mic.

[@HornadySetiawan]

Should've discussed what ifs: - if backseater pulled ejecter 1s later - if backseater pulled 2s later - if backseater didn't pull at all - etc What would happen, trajectory, possibilities, probable scenarios, and the percentage of those probabilities would've become, etc. Then we can judge wether the backseater has made a good decision or not.

[@Charlie0Six]

The guy interviewed saved their lives. If you watch the entire thing, you get the picture that the owner was overwhelmed, hesitated and lost situational awareness. They weren't in the ejection envelope for the aircraft and the seat, and lucky that it even worked. I don't know much about the mig-23 but it's clear to me that the backseater saved the day.

[@CWLemoine]

It would be nice to hear from the PIC.

[@exit1368]

@@CWLemoineAgreed. But, you know this was still a miracle that they are able to hug their loved ones tonight. Still, reminds me of the T-3A morts in the mid 90’s. We did the entire T-37 Acro/Contact syllabus without even a parachute - no idea how AETC approved that. 🫡

[@Charlie0Six]

Yep, I'd love to hear his side of the story. I agree with what you guys said about putting flaps down, limited awareness in the coffin, and not talking before the investigation is completed. I guess he's just super confident he did no wrong. At the end of the day, I bet the owner is grateful that he punched them out.

[@19KiloM1A1]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 You got all that from what this clown said? The AC was in control and working the problem. Now what would have happed if that plane took out the apartment building and killed people? Then it would be his fault.

[@aaronzeiger216]

This whole situation screams CYA. This guy is either arrogant or he feels something happened and needs to get in front of it. Most normal people would keep their mouth shut during the investigation, especially with the potential civil litigation that will come from this.

[@pilotguy1141]

The guy just seems beyond cocky. With an issue like this I wonder if he could lose his pilot's license due to the severity of the incident

[@aaronzeiger216]

I doubt he will face FAA sanctions against his certificate because he was not PIC or AC. He was a passenger. But, I think going public is going to hurt him in a civil suit big time because he is just spewing evidence that will be used against him. Now he'll have shared liability on property damage.

[@owenmerrick2377]

I suggest buddy back seat already has had legal advice. Sounds like it.

[@aaronzeiger216]

Maybe, but I can't think of one attorney who would think that it's a good idea to go public like that. They always say keep quiet.

[@patrickunderwood5662]

@@pilotguy1141 A cocky, arrogant jet pilot? Nooooo, say it isn’t so!

[@superpilotish]

It's so tempting to armchair quarterback these things before the investigation and final report come out. I think you guys showed a professional level of restraint. Great vid! 👍

[@simonbaxter8001]

The 'owner' PIC would most likely be too fixated on saving his aircraft than the bigger picture. I had a colleague and friend that died in a Hawker Hunter because he tried to get the aircraft back to the airfield after lighting up the tailpipe (fuelling mishandling). Rather than ejecting, he tried to stretch the glide. I don't agree that the back seat guy was guiding the PIC, but I do believe that he was seeing more of the picture than the fixated PIC. Right or wrong, he save both their lives. If they had individual commanded ejection seats, I believe the PIC would have gone in with the aircraft.

[@MrHaun]

This came out really quick. I wonder if Filer knew his backseater was going to do this interview.

[@MrHaun]

@BlackFlag714 Yeah, Dan Filer. Navy Callsign: Files

[@ryandenney351]

They flew together quite a bit that week and weeks prior to that. I can see the owner trying to save the plane all the way to the ground while not seeing what's going on around himself.

[@frizzlefry5904]

@ Gonky, I just did my bi annual, its ultralight flying in the u.k, but at 25 mins in you nail it, you are so on the money, thank you for your observations, my instructor/ check pilot in the back just forced me into a 'puppet' place as Mover rightly described, I flew like an idiot in places, where when I am PIC or P1 would never had done, due to to too much input coming in from the check pilot in my headset, many thanks.

[@tysoncott7402]

1st impressions go a long ways but the backseater just seems like an epic tool, i think he’s doing some early over the top explaining of what happened to defend himself as many folks feel he is the reason for this accident.

[@daszieher]

Whatever it is, it already appears uncalled for (and I know nothing on the matter as I have best stood next to a MiG-23)

[@stillededge]

I look forward to any telemetry that will be reviewed - that should get to the truth if it's possible. Maybe he was right, it was time to go and the pilot was trying too hard to make the problem go away? But for what "testimony" we've seen & heard...I think this cat had too much to live for and punched before it was time.

[@StromBugSlayer]

I don't know. If the preliminary report had a lot of errors and vagaries that seemed to implicate the back seater, I can see him wanting to respond. Whether it was the wisest decision is another matter.

[@stillededge]

@@StromBugSlayer He's the one that "punched out"...he's the only one that made that "vague". He should own it. "I did it." Whether or not THAT was the wisest decision...should be the only thing we are worried about. I'm sure he is sweating the "Monday Quarterbacks" judging him reckless for taking the decision away from the pilot and holding him accountable for one jet and one smoking hole.

[@StromBugSlayer]

@@stillededge I don't think there's any question that they should not have waited even as long as they did.

[@thudthud5423]

The bottom line is that Mark Ruff put a LOT of people on the ground (people in the apartments - my neighbors! and people on I-94) at risk by ejecting over them.

[@mikemontgomery2654]

I think you guys are bang-on about the back-seat driver points. The other factor that I can’t discount is the Mig, itself. They can be complicated to fly. The lack of speed that those guys had really stood out to me. One of the first things I noticed about the mig-21, seeing it in person, was just how fast the approach speed of that plane is. I later read that it was even higher for the mig-23. Even if a relight was the answer, I don’t think that plane was staying in the air, long enough for a successful relight. Those old Soviet planes can and will bite you.

[@ethanhiggins4887]

I was going to comment on what I think happened with the flap situation but you guys nailed it with the "puppet master" comment. It is very possible that Dan didn't even recognize or think about the decision to employ flaps and instead just responded to the command. I don't know what the backseater's experience is but it seems like he is really throwing his weight around with the comments made during the preliminary report, and then this interview. If I was Dan I wouldn't be too happy, especially if someone punched me out while I am flying the plane. Granted I wouldn't be too happy if the pilot flew me into the ground or punched me out to low for a chute so there is also that. Lots to unpack here and I will be interested to hear from the NTSB and Dan.

[@jimw1615]

Perfect comment: "I am not flying a MiG 23 with a cold seat." And that is exactly what has to happen to get the message across that ejecting from an old war bird operated and flown by private citizens over populated areas is not going to be tolerated and more importantly, not allowed.

[@noonehere1793]

It appeared to me that the owner/pilot was trying to insure the plane went in to a vacant area ahead (based on initial bank and the area) and was hoping to have perhaps 2 more seconds to get the plane level before jettisoning the aircraft. The subsequent investigation will shed more light on this. In the end a plane was lost, no one was killed and both pilots survived without major injury….so … win win

[@theraptorsnest5891]

That interview was a bad idea. It's almost like the guy is trying to stay ahead of something that's ultimately going to be discovered during the investigation. He talks like he was calling some shots to the "aircraft owner" but as Mover and Gonky stated, he would have had very limited SA sitting in the backseat of that Mig-23. Something about this just doesn't add up to me.

[@manowaari]

Was guy in the back kind of "pilot monitoring". If he knew stall speed and pilot command was focused try fix engine problem.. So he was telling "danger zone" is close... I understand that Mark was trying to get type rating on that Mig.

[@rianfriday9919]

The main problem is the pilot was trying to save the Plaine instead of just letting it crash

[@tiro2041]

In commercial aviation we're more and more focusing on the co-pilot being able and willing to take control from the pilot in command if he/she feels like the aircraft is approaching a situation that could be dangerous. A lot of training is performed where the co-pilot take control, performs a missed approach and then when the pilot in command has regained situation awareness the co-pilot hands back control to the pilot in command. There have been too many accidents where the pilot in command thought he had situational awareness but in reality didn't and the co-pilot was too afraid or hesitated to take action and they ended up in a tragedy.

[@hudsondonnell444]

I've said this on a FB page post on this crash. "When I looked at every angle of the incident footage, I have come to the conclusion that the back seater who according to what I've heard has more time sitting in the back of these MIG-23's than "Files" has flying them, was correct to commit to eject. If the plane was below 200 ktas as he says, there is no way with the sink rate of the jet that it would have made it across I-94. This is mostly due to pulling full flaps a short time earlier. There's no way I'd sit in the back of one of these things, you can't see much because you are sitting deep in the cockpit.

[@Rob-vv5yn]

Great show !!!!! I’m being patient to hear the final report on this one and you guys were so diplomatic but so accurate on this storey.

[@pittss2c601]

That backseat is like flying a Pitts Special aerobatic biplane. Extremely blind.

[@patrickmurphy4911]

They were at no more than 700 feet. They knew they had a Russian ejection seat which wasn't designed for low altitude ejection. Maybe this guy jumped the gun, but honestly by what? A second or two? I feel like the NTSB's report is really what has triggered this mess. It really implied the backseater was out of line.

[@ronnl001]

In the Colgan crashed, the FO sucked up the flaps, which was why the aircraft stalled.

[@RubenKelevra]

As @blancolirio pointed out, this aircraft has had a similar "engine running but not responding, then flaming out" situation in the past. I guess they never found the culprit and it happend again, but at a much lower altitude.

[@TimberWolfeVids]

It was an issue with the fuel controller. If it wasn't in Juan's video it was in the original one that he showed. Now the question is, is this a systemic failure with the fuel controller on this engine type? When it boils down to it, there's really only a handful of root causes for mechanical failures...user error/improper use or application, poor design/engineering, "cascade" failure (something else failed that caused this object to fail)...and that's pretty much it. And the first two are far more common than the third. In 15 years of failure analysis experience I'd say the first 2 account for well over 95% of what has come across my desk.

[@erikvc1789]

Interesting you said that it could fly on. In the eighties a Mig 23 or 27 (don't remember which) that came from Poland or East-Germany had some troubles and the pilot ejected. The plane crashed here in Belgium killing people on the ground.

[@hoghogwild]

It was a MiG 23, in this video @ 33:40 stated by viewer Boris, that it was a MiG-29.

[@Wannes_]

That pilot ejected because he knew there was no realistic chance to get the engine back at low altitude after take off - it wasn't the first such instance. The freak thing that day was that the engine somehow did pick up again, and the plane kept flying instead of crashing right away, as usual

[@TimberWolfeVids]

The looks on both your faces during the interview cracked me up...I probably had the same look on mine when I watched this and I have zero actual pilot time on any aircraft. Removing the fact that we're two weeks out and he's already doing an interview, a lot of what was said during the interview was...strange. The whole "aircraft owner" thing definitely being one of the biggest. Very "legal-ese". Like I said, I'm not a pilot...I'm an engineer with a background in failure analysis investigation. Between this interview...the window mishap at OshKosh...something just smells funny. I'm interested to see the results of the investigation. My initial "gut check" is there is far more to the story here though.

[@P51]

i think the back-seater had ALL the S.A. because the pilot was task-saturated. if the back-seater didn't punch them when he did, they were both dead. the pilot had maybe a swing and a half in the chute. there was no scenario where that engine was going to immediately produce enough thrust to get them out of that. imo, of course.

[@CWLemoine]

Certainly possible.

[@jamesmurray3948]

He had a swing and a half because the back seat started the ejection at what looks like 30 degrees bank. If you are gonna override the PIC take all control and roll wings level.

[@annone6462]

One thing is for sure. Marky lawyered up quick and write a really long nice work of fiction and published it first after the incident.

[@privateer454]

Mover, you and Gonky really shined in this breakdown. Great stuff!

[@CWLemoine]

Thanks!

[@MarionBlair]

Good assessment!

[@CommomsenseSmith]

Yeah I question why this guy decided to do the interview so quickly.

[@thomas7770]

Backseater should have kept his mouth shut and not touched anything. Owner would have got the engine restarted. This guy is actively trying to discredit the owner and create a false narrative of his innocence.

[@alexis1451]

Gonky has a very Ellen "they can bill me" Ripley attitude when it comes to preserving human life :)

[@jeff0247598]

Being a former deputy for 15 years I draw parallells in this incident to an officer involved shooting. The officer has just gone through a life changing traumatic experience. Those experiences can cause time dilation in the officer's perception, there is audible distortions, and so many other things can effect the accuracy of the officer's memory of the incident. To talk about what happened before the investigation is over in this crash is irresponsible. Now, in an OIS, the officer can be compelled to make a statement by the critical incident protocol investigation team, but the officer has every right to say they don't recall or they aren't exactly sure on questions being fired at them sometimes just a few hours after they were involved and they are treated initially as a possible murder suspect.

[@obamabigears734]

Why would he sing like jail bird before the investigation is complete? You would think an airline pilot would be smarter than that.

[@guymitchell3842]

The back seater did say he was controlling the flaps. He sounded like he wants to be in control and telling the poc what to do. With that said I don’t think he would have listened to the poc. And over reacted

[@docauger2032]

SIR, THE METAL SIGN OVER YOUR SHOULDER SAYS IT ALL

[@Triple_J.1]

The Mig-23 was engine out, well below approach speed. Below their handbook "over the fence" speed, below turbine traffic pattern altitude of 1,500AGL and descending below the lowest GA pattern altitude of 800'AGL. The thrust was gone, the engine RPM was decreasing "below 80%" (which for non-turbine pilots, is like 20% thrust, as the last 10% between 90-100 is about half of your available thrust and its falling to a value exponentially less as it decreases below 100%). The wings are full-forward, the aircraft is buffeting. ~ You don't want to experience any aerodynamic buffet in the traffic pattern or on final approach. The pilot lowers the nose, then immediately raises it back into buffet. Presumably because he doesn't like the view of the inevitable crash site. But you can not cheat physics or reality, and the jet begins to buffet into a stall again, this time lower and slower than before. The jet is deep into the "backside of the L/D curve" with substantially reduced thrust. This means its also deep into the "backside of the power curve" with no altitude to effect a stall recovery. This is an indicator that its time to eject. There is no if, ands, or buts. You are ejecting or you are dying. The ejection envelope is clearly published at >90kts, =/>6,500'AGL. They are descending thru 10% of that required altitude. In 50 year old ejection seats that have been un-tested, and are known to not be capable of "zero-zero" ejections, and they are fast running out of air below them, altitude becoming zero very rapidly. 10s to impact. The only debate here is should the back-seat pilot rated, Mig-23 trained, but not rated, educated observer have pulled the ejection handle at that moment, or three seconds later? (Or rode the fireball into the crash to avoid the apartments). Or should have he asked the pilot perform the operation immediately, and if no response pull it himself after 3 seconds? ~ It appears he did tell the pilot its time to go and the pilot replied muffled tones or negative action continued to work on the engine situation. Either, is the wrong answer. There ain't time to spool up to 95 or 100% rpm from below 80% in a partial or total flameout. The only thing you can do is steer to clear the houses if able, and punch out. *I absolutely agree with the assessment given in this video. I also considered all of those indicators such as the poor decision to interview as he did. And the manner of which he speaks of the owner, and the double-speak as to what happened, claiming to tell the pilot to move the wings forward but somehow the pilot didn't do it but they ended up forward anyway and he wont actually say that he himself moved them forward... In my experience: Narcissists lie. And they manipulate other people to acquire supporters and admirers. They are also chicken, scared like a 3 year old inside. And fall apart easily when pushed.

[@jedibusiness789]

The ole adage. “If one can walk away from a crash” Disagree with last paragraph. Airforce doesn’t hire scrubs. It’s the internet imposing a moral value and maybe the reason to get in front of the judgement. In the end truth backed by evidence gathered by professionals will sort this out. Bottom line they’re alive and no one on the ground was hurt.

[@pistonburner6448]

@@jedibusiness789 The Air Force does indeed hire scrubs sometimes...some might even say often. Even highly selective and professional outfits like Air France have managed to hire pilots who will stall a plane out of level flight at FL350, pulling back on the controls for several minutes while in stall...

[@Astronetics]

@@pistonburner6448 I'm not entirely clear on the connection you're drawing with your comment. Could you please provide more context or clarify your point? It appears that your message may suggest that Air FRANCE is somehow more selective and professional than the Air FORCE, which might not be accurate. It's crucial to recognize that the Air FORCE and Air FRANCE are entirely distinct entities, each with its unique missions and responsibilities. If we narrow our focus solely to coveted 'fighter plane' slots, it's reasonable to assume that the Air FORCE would have a strong incentive to be highly selective in its process for training individuals who pilot multi-hundred-million-dollar planes. However, when considering their broader scope as large enterprises, it's also logical to speculate that they might encounter similar challenges, don't you think?

[@GeekFurious]

Everyone people don't agree with is a narcissist these days it seems...

[@flyinsvo]

What interests me is fighter pilot mentality...as in winning. I'm not a pilot but ejecting right or wrong is basically mentally giving up. I wonder if fighter pilots struggle with this when there is perceived hope to save the plane?

[@tonymcflattie2450]

Colgan air crash, the Fo retracted a notch of flap, uncomanded. (Not extended, like moose mentions)

[@gunhog11]

To the C-17 backseater playing fighter pilot, never miss an opportunity to know when to shut the eff up, as the saying goes in our community. Surely you have sat through enough briefings of how to conduct yourself if the subject of a SIB investigation (the NTSB being the civil version) that should know better than to make public statements before the investigation is complete. Just opening yourself to questions from the FAA. And eventually ambulance chaser lawyers who will capitalize on twisting anything you publicly stated into whatever pretzel of logic they want to.

[@tdevinetampa]

I’m not a pilot but I use to parachute, two oscillations and then hit the ground. This guy saved them both. The pilot was trying to save his plan not steer the plane away from people, if that was the case he would have stayed over the lake.

[@CWLemoine]

It depends.

[@bronco5334]

If you actually view any of the videos from THE DAY OF THE INCIDENT, you would know the lake was absolutely packed with boat traffic. It also is a small, extremely irregularly shaped lake that is broken up into multiple small sections instead of one long stretch. The lake absolutely was not an appropriate location to put the aircraft.

[@blown533]

fish lives matter.

[@jonnie2bad]

you don't know what the pilot was doing. Maybe you should wait for the report to come out before you crucify someone.

[@JoeThePilot]

@Jonnie 100% agree. Some discussion and speculation is ok, except when it comes to placing blame. Drives me crazy, especially when the pilot(s) don't make it. Wait for the report before throwing anyone under the bus.

[@kylecarmichael5890]

Yeah, that interview seems a bit odd, that said I haven't watch the whole thing yet. But the video of the ejection, they had no more time. I was very worried that the pilot's chute wasn't going to open that is how close to the ground they were. So I 100% agree on the ejection, it was a truly now or never moment. And I loved this episode, well done you 2. THanks.

[@owensparks5013]

One of the bravest things I've seen was a display pilot who stuck with his crippled plane until the nose was pointing away from the crowd and towards a safe crash point. He would have flown it into the ground if he had to rather than risk the people on the ground. (Long time ago when flight over the crowd was permitted.) Could this guy even see where the plane would impact when he pulled the handle? I might be jumping to conclusions here, but this doesn't feel quite right.

[@benjigault9043]

Yes, if you watch the Flywire video they do bank left in order to hopefully keep the aircraft from injuring anyone on the ground.

[@owensparks5013]

@@benjigault9043 Excellent, thanks for the info.

[@jbuckley2546]

That's not brave but the minimum requirement from any aviator.

[@billdurham8477]

Yup, I keep thinking of that too. I had an Auntie who was in her house when a Bearcat ( wing fell off, overpulled it) wound up 30' deep in her back yard. She sold the house for a song just to get away from the airport. Oh, and rich man helping to cover for a rich man.

[@nadyamullen6098]

No the guy in the back could see nothing that's why during the FLY Wire interview he said that the pilot said there were apartments in font of them and "something to the effect that they were coming left", he couldn't see and had no conformation that there were clear of anything but still instantly banged out, notice how well versed he seems since hes spent the last week or so reading up and having an answer for everything, it all seems well rehearsed to me

[@stillededge]

So, he doesn't remember punching out...be he REMEMBERS what a hero he was with the advice?

[@benjigault9043]

It is very common for pilots who eject not to remember the ejection. It is an extremely violent event. Mark and Dan both suffered broken backs, and lots of bruising. Dan was not wearing gloves or sleeves and his arms were slightly burned from the ejection seat rocket.

[@stillededge]

@@benjigault9043 Maybe. But my point...he's pretty damned lucid about the rest. I once got hit by a pickup truck when I was a kid...I remembered the grill of the truck right before it hit me and knocked me out. Not the same, sure, but...?

[@blown533]

his back, it's broken.

[@StromBugSlayer]

He does remember punching out, in detail. Watch the interview. The preliminary report either got that wrong or he was addled when he was interviewed.

[@stillededge]

@@StromBugSlayer Yeah, he remembers "now" is the fishy part. "Addled"? Sure...maybe. Doubt it. The PILOT remembered just fine. "I don't know what happened, I was troubleshooting next thing I know, I'm OUT." But the guy that so thoughtfully & deliberately, based on sound reasoning & consideration of the telemetry, DECIDES to eject KNOWING how brutal it'll be..."fuzzy" on the facts...at first...and is now giving interviews extolling his own heroism, in painstaking detail, outside of the investigative process? 😑 🐟🐠ey.

[@mikebaginy8731]

Great discussion, valid points, guys!

[@daszieher]

"Eventually, when these books turn into movies, I want to buy a Viper." Dude, I so hope that this pans out for you! That would be awesome. However, also don't forget to buy yourself a hazmat suit 😂

[@markcoveryourassets]

Thank you for sharing your perspectives. Very good questions. Just need to hear from Dan Filer and get his perspective. Maybe Ruff took too much initiative, and it ended up being what they needed to survive. If Filer was actually directing the plane away from harming others or had a plan to put it on the ground, then Ruff's actions may have kept them alive but were unnecessary given Filer's next steps. I can say one thing for sure, I'd never want to have a passenger in my car that could eject both of us. 😮😂

[@andynormancx]

Even if they could save your life by pulling that handle when if you were unable to take that decision ?

[@markcoveryourassets]

@@andynormancx Thank you for your reply. It points out further distinction that I need to make. If I were driving with someone who had trained with me, abides by the same protocols, and I trusted... no problem. That distinction also seems to be part of the problem here... Ruff didn't trust Filer. Filer may wish he hadn't trusted Ruff. Or maybe he's glad he did. I think good training and teamwork is better than good intentions. Definitely want to hear the full story, including Filer.

[@UbiquitousDIY]

Feels like he's drip feeding his rationale for pulling the ejection handle before eventually remembering he pulled the ejection handle.

[@gawebm]

Glad you picked up on this. I don't have your experience, but I thought the "copilot" was hinky throughout the interview. For all the reasons you are questioning.

[@jonmclaughlin4128]

About the name thing. In the interview, he does say the owners name once. He pauses everytime to edit and say, "The Owner". I am speculating now but it is likely that the owner didn't want to do the interview and thought it was a bad idea but said, "You do you just don't mention my name" Which would explain it, or the guy who did the interview has a lawyer that he is ignoring and that lawyer said something similar in the hopes of helping the owner stay out of trouble even if this guy is shooting his mouth off when he shouldn't. Aside from that, I enjoyed your takes on this. I still feel like the backseater was acting in good faith at the very least. We can all guess for days since we have all the time in the world and are sitting on a chair. :-)

[@trev6783]

It seems like there might be a clash between the pilot and the back seat guy. The back seater is probably trying to get his story out there early before the investigation is done, because the Pilot may be under the belief that aircraft was savable and the back seat guy pulled the eject too early.

[@smark1180]

There should have been a pre-flight ejection briefing - especially when the back-seater can eject both. Was there?

[@edwardbentley]

Gonky, you got the Colgan flight wrong, the A/C was sitting right at the stall around 85kts when the F/O put the flaps to zero and the stall immediately went above stall by 30 kts. Then an immediate stall/spin.

[@pistonburner6448]

Everything about this backseat guy made my alarm bells ring. Everything. And as I listened to more and more of his performance, recounting his tales of heroism and how he knew what to do, commanding that aircraft from the back seat, the more my alarm bells were ringing. I've known that kind of guy several times before...immediately when I saw him, his appearance, his demeanor it raised a few questions and now it all makes sense.

[@brentwilson2622]

Yeah the fo in the colgan crash retracted the flaps. She didn’t extend them. I don’t think adding flaps increases AOA. It should change the shape of the wing to put you further from the critical AOA. Adding flaps increases AOA on the tail. I do agree that flaps full would be adding more drag than lift in most planes.

[@dutchpilotguy]

Fun fact: I was about to flame your comment for the flaps not increasing AoA, and so I went to my trusty textbooks, again, because… yeah…, I was about to go strafe your @ with a notification. Then, this line which I apparently even highlighted during my first aerodynamics class in Uni comes straight from _Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators_ : “The principal effect of the extension of flaps is to increase the CLmax and reduce the angle of attack for any given lift coefficient” So, I felt like I had failed at life, so I grabbed a different text, from a different course, _Flight Theory and Aerodynamics_ , which goes on to state that the proper term for flaps, slats, and slots ought to be “high coefficient of lift devices”. So, anyways, I’m just looking at my “me wall” and googling truck driving schools. …I might need that… 😂

[@brentwilson2622]

Well I’m glad I didn’t get flamed cause its been a long time since i looked at Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators

[@CWLemoine]

Adding trailing edge flaps increases the angle of attack and adds drag. It also increases lift and CLMax. Adding leading edge flaps reduces the AOA.

[@brentwilson2622]

Yeah that’s right, I’m wrong. The Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators quote is referring to the angle of attack for Clmax. If you add trailing edge flaps the angle of attack of Clmax is reduced not the angle attack of the wing. What’s that number for the truck driving school?

[@Medge2sc]

Sounds like a story teller rather than reliving an event He’s not using the pilots name to separate himself from the story , people do this when they are lying

[@Triple_J.1]

Love the insight! Agree 100%.

[@P-J-W-777]

Mark talks about Dan by name in a few points of the interview and never says anything negative about him, actually indicates he is a good pilot. The MiG 23 emergency procedures says to eject @ 2000 feet in an emergency. Mark wasn’t directing the flight he’s just making Dan aware as he’s in the front seat trying to work the problem. The former F-15 pilot interviewing Mark said the flaps are probably what gave them that extra bit of time to get out safely. Mark was actually very well versed with the Mig 23 and was working towards his check flight. It’s also been said the wing sweep indicator in the front seat was inop. I’m sure Dan is not talking because he’s the aircraft owner and has to deal with the FAA as the PIC as well as his insurance. Anyway how is Mark gonna get time if he can’t fly in the back seat. Based on statements as well as pictures before the crash the Tail Feathers failed and were stuck not allowing the engine to produce thrust. Maybe he wanted people to hear their story. The FAA and the airlines tried to bury Sully and his copilot and place the blame on them. That is until Sully made them redo their sim flight with the same situation they were presented with. They kept giving their test pilots extra time claiming they had plenty of time to make it to a couple airports when in fact they didn’t as it was proven. The funny thing is the FAA and Airlines didn’t want to fly the sim with the parameters Sully requested. Saying he shouldn’t have been in the back seat is not right especially since the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds always take media or some celebrity on flights in the backseat during Airsho events.

[@mpetry912]

Col Peck who ran the Mig program in the 80s at Tonopah talks about the guages - fuel flow in Kg/min and altitude in meters - he said that was very confusing. The book is "constant peg" - excellent read. This sounds like a real failure of crew coordination. and maybe the backseater is trying to save his rating and his reputation. They were low and slow and the -23 flies like a safe with the door open.

[@BenTrem42]

I gotta repeat this: *"WAIT ... **_WAIT!"_* would far more effective than something more like _"Just hold on, I'm doing some troubleshooting up here ..."_ #JustSay #NoDiss

[@CH-lc3yf]

Good clarification. When I first saw the interview I thought the backseater was the IP upgrading the owner. Which would be strange to do at an air show.

[@oldftrpilot2593]

Sometimes the AC or Captain has head up and locked and the copilot needs to take the airplane and fix the problem and talk about it later. In the F-111 the WSO often initiated ejection, some times too late. In my own career I took a takeoff from the AC in a large bomber when he headed off the runway with multiple engine failures above V1, and in my airline career I took control on approach and once when the Captain was intent on sliding a brand new 767-400 off the end of the runway in a heavy rain. After the last one I retired early.

[@Thunderbird-2]

I couldn't imagine how I'd feel if a passenger removed me from my plane mid-flight.

[@ChazToz]

How about 'Happy to be Alive'? Every RIO, WSO, and Navigator have seen "pilot fixation". From target fixation to blowing the hard deck, it happens more than pilots care to admit. "Owner/Operator" and the desire to save the aircraft becomes an even higher factor.

[@deedubs602]

I heard on another channel talking about the incident report that the pilot stated that he wasn’t ready to eject. He was trying to solve the problem and next thing he knew he was out of the aircraft.

[@Alpha_Omega_1541]

WTF would you do an interview like this? All of this could be used against him in a lawsuit.

[@59thfsaviation79]

Lol. What the hell are you talking about? A lawsuit using two people's opinions? They aren't accident investigators and don't work the the TSB. Calm down. wow.

[@bronco5334]

@@59thfsaviation79 He's not talking about Mover and Gonky, he's questioning why the backseater from the crash would make a public statement like this when there is still possible legal action pending for the crash.

[@Alpha_Omega_1541]

@@59thfsaviation79You and I are flying a mig 23, that you own. You’re the pilot and I’m riding in the back. You encounter a problem. I tell you to eject, you tell me, I’m not ready to eject, I punch out. Maybe I saved our lives… or I panicked, destroyed your 1.4 million dollar aircraft, and caused you bodily injury. If the latter was the case, I suspect you would sue me. If you find yourself in a situation like this, you STFU until after the investigation has been concluded. Everything he is saying here could be used against him, regardless if he’s telling the truth or not.

[@59thfsaviation79]

@@Alpha_Omega_1541 I apologize. I read it as you were upset at Mover for the commentary. I didn't realize you were talking about the backseater.

[@annsheridan12]

Merely ask a few questions, was return to airport possible? NO! Was there time to get thrust back? NO! Out of altitude and ideas? YES! Note how close to ground pilot’s chute opens. When ejection occurred they were seconds from death.

[@CWLemoine]

You don't know any of these to be factual statements yet. We must wait for the results of the NTSB investigation and for the PIC to give his side of the events.

[@benjigault9043]

Dan Filer is the pilot/ owner of the Mig 23

[@CWLemoine]

Yup.

[@JBSmoke1]

Listening to the back seater's comments, it's a big time lack of crew coordination. The back seater was not PIC, but he sounds like he was calling the shots IP style. I wonder what the PIC will have to say about this?

[@Andrew-13579]

Just humor here, but maybe the owner got so tired of the instructions from the back seat that he punched the back seater out. 😄

[@jonnie2bad]

Dying to know what the PIC "mumbled" when the back seater mentions ejecting.

[@CWLemoine]

That is a great question.

[@ethanhiggins4887]

I'm not a huge fan of military pilots flying warbirds and I say that without any military flying experience, but almost all the warbird/airshow pilots I know would sacrifice themselves before injuring bystanders/spectators. So far the attitude I'm getting from the interview and the prelim report is self preservation.

[@BigPapa_2001]

I wonder if the front seat was planning to ride the plane to the ground to keep from hitting anyone.

[@ginjaico_6132]

I felt that too. He just came across that it was important that he got out rather than what could this plane come down on!

[@deathraylabs_nature]

yeah, he waited until the end to even mention the risk to folks on the ground

[@ILruffian]

I can't believe that the FAA tried to get them to make statements from a hospital room. In police OIS, the hospital is consider a safe haven. IAB, etc. cannot question anyone there.

[@chili_92]

Super pleased that nobody lost their life. I’m curious though, if there were any casualties in the apartments, on the ground or even one of the people in the aircraft, would that alter the final report in any way?

[@ypw510]

Apparently no injuries on the ground, although I heard an unoccupied pickup truck was destroyed.

[@bobcfi1306]

There needs to be a discussion on these demo aircraft up having ejection seats flying over populated areas

[@johngalt258]

They definitely weren’t going to make the airport with only seconds to work the problem. Right or wrong, him punching them out saved them, most likely. Only a few swings before the water. Beyond the apartments is a dense civilian area. I’m sure the pilot would’ve liked to save the plane. Ann Arbor resident.

[@JaymesEaston]

IMHO, I ponder if Ruff gave this interview so that we can have this discussion now without waiting a couple of years for NTSB's final report. I doubt he would have done an interview if there had been casualties and fatalities on the ground.

[@Saltlick11]

Good report, discussion. I would've loved to see them turn right toward the water instead of toward the land situ. Looking over the map, there was no way they could make it back to RWY.

[@Greg-pt7ur]

Studies have shown that until a person involved in such an incident will not have accurate memory until 2 full sleep cycles or up to 48 hours later.

[@DHC-6aviator]

The data and dynamics (roll-back to idle, airspeed, vertical speed, speed reduction, altitude) presented by Scott Perdue and Mark Ruff shows that Mark obviously was the person with the right situational awareness in this aircraft. Pulling the two guys out of the jet saved the lives of both of them. Mark did override the authorothy of the commander, - and that saved their lives. Good job Mark! Why are you guys so sore on behalf of the commander?

[@CWLemoine]

Who’s sore? We are discussing a public interview and asking questions that we believe are valid, based on that interview and our previous experience. How is that sore? I don’t know how many investigations you’ve done, but it’s usually good to hear from all parties involved and to see the truth data.

[@steverapp7200]

I don’t know the owners qualifications, but some people have more money than they do experience. Maybe the backseat knew the owner was a weak pilot and asked him to ride along to help keep an eye on things. Just because you can afford to own and fly a Mig doesn’t mean you always should.

[@CWLemoine]

Former Navy A-6 pilot and 777 Captain.

[@fanATIc666x]

@@DrittAdrAtta its doesnt matter how much experience front pilot have or have not... in this situation if its true as its told... even Maverick wont save the day... because u cant do anything... just made some flypath corrections and go out...

[@TXHusker05]

I've gone back and forth on this one a lot, especially after watching this interview. A few things are clear. The first is never talk to anyone without representation. Not the FAA, not the NTSB, not the police. The fact that this pilot (observer) even felt the need to do this interview because he felt the preliminary report was taken out of context (or flat out wrong) is a big problem. He should know better, but so should the NTSB and the FAA. Dan Filer clearly knows better. The second, obviously, is that there was a complete and total breakdown of CRM. Maybe the PIC didn't think of the backseater as "crew" so wanted to deal with the problem himself (wrong attitude, just like you both pointed out about CRM even when flying single seat). Maybe the backseater didn't do a good job of communicating what he believed the situation to be before yanking them out. Maybe they simply had no time to discuss it before a decision had to be made. We'll never know for sure, with no CVR/FDR/HUD tapes all we'll ever have is crew statements and tower tapes (and from what I understand, after the emergency call, no further communication was received from the MiG so that won't help much). All we know is that something in the jet was broken and CRM clearly broke down. Those two things out of the way, these are my observations: Based only on the videos, I see zero indication that any attempts to control or recover that jet from a loss of power situation were working. It had no change of bank or attitude and you can clearly hear no change in sound from the engine. There were so few changes in control input that I thought it had a total hydraulic failure at first. I don't know if it was quite as dire as the backseater was suggesting, but the MiG-23 is well known for its extremely rapid acceleration from idle to mil and it has the glide ratio of a cinder block. If he's looking at the throttle going from idle to mil and the thrusties aren't coming (so to speak), at that altitude, I'm not sure what is left to do other than jump out. Gonky is right, better to err on the side of jumping out too early than err on the side of jumping out too late. Speaking of which, I know it is 50+ year old Russian engineering, but that was a SLOW ejection sequence. It was three seconds from the first canopy popping to the front seat coming off the rails and the front seater still only got a couple swings under the chute. Another two or three seconds and I'm not sure the front seater's chute even opens. Another five or six and one or both of them is a smoking hole. It is tough to imagine a situation where another two to six seconds of troubleshooting saves the jet. Like most things, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but in a situation where the guy up front is also the owner of the very rare (only airworthy privately owned MiG-23 in the world), very expensive jet, part of me wonders if he was sticking with it a lot longer than he would have if he didn't have a financial stake in the bird. Sadly, I'm not sure we'll ever know the full truth so speculation and pilot interviews are all we'll have.

[@OKtGCGOEM1SS]

The pilot in command can give us all the clues of the whole picture ....seems plenty of orders to me from the back seater ...is it true that the back seater pilot owns a single seat version of the Mig-23 and was also qualified as a Mig 23 pilot??? 🤔 Thank you both for the video!🤙🤙🤙

[@CWLemoine]

He was not qualified in the MiG-23 at the time of the mishap. I posted his quals.

[@OKtGCGOEM1SS]

Thanks for the correct info!

[@BigDickMark]

@@CWLemoine He was unqualified. Call a spade a spade like Dan Gryder does.

[@spurgaming5400]

Good listen! I know zero on whether it was the right call or not to punch out but your right, the interview does seem somewhat odd. I honestly feel like its all legal jockeying on any potential liability issues, for any mistakes that may or may not have been made and the financial loss of the aircraft, as well as just jumping ahead of the public narrative. It definitely seemed like his very first statement being something to the effect of well I don't remember it, but I may have punched us out was absolutely legal jockeying. Then as soon as the vids started circulating the very first public response was 'man they punched out quick'. I think at that point the narrative was starting to form that maybe it was premature. It may have very well been the right call 100% but all it takes is that one little seed of doubt to get circulating and then he's ostracized forever on that call. The whole thing really just seems like a PR thing. Also, the guy that did the interview with the backseater, did they have any kind of personal relationship? Completely neutral? I'm just wondering how the interview came about.

[@zippydooda563]

Sounds like back-seater is full of crap-ski…..

[@davidmurphy8190]

The swing wings on the FLOGGER do not work as well as the TOMCAT or the VARK. The FLOGGER engine also had more than a few quirks.

[@soeren72]

Sounds a bit like he wants to portray the leading hero role.

[@Milo_1368]

They're alive and is everyone who was on the ground. All that really maters ultimately.

[@CWLemoine]

Yup.

[@CHECK6-963]

I read somewhere that the backseater was qualified in the single seat mig23. I don't remember where I saw that.

[@CWLemoine]

I posted the qualifications as provided by the FAA in this video.

[@CHECK6-963]

@CWLemoine I was strictly going by the rumor mill

[@GSteel-rh9iu]

Airspeed 180 kts and falling; altitude under 800ft! They ran out of time; whoever pulled the handle saved their lives. Watch the chutes in the video; the front guy had barely 2 swings. Another few seconds and they would be in the hole with the aircraft.

[@november5945]

Eject early and eject often😳

[@ralgith]

I saw on another channel that the FAA requires both seats in the MiG-23 to be occupied. I don't remember why. I believe it was Ward Carrol's channel.

[@ecossearthur]

Surprised that the Doctors on site allowed an Interview.....

[@350ZEASZE]

It was clear to me that given their altitude full flaps were added in hopes of getting the engine to light back up. If the engine doesn't light flaps or no flaps they're going down. 🤷‍♂️

[@CWLemoine]

The question was not flaps or no flaps. It was full flaps if you’re expecting the engine to produce power again. That’s a lot of drag.

[@AviationJeremy]

8:23 it sounds like they were dropping flaps to buy time to get power back, as they were already getting too slow and sinking too fast. They were already going to crash, and that sounds like the only chance they had to avoid it. It didn’t work out, but it was reasonable.

[@gregkeshishian3542]

Hey guys...on the MIG-23 incident...and setting aside trying to figure out who is talking, when he's talking and why he's talking...it seems to me that you've got a ancient, monster Soviet machine flying a few hundred feet above the ground with an engine stuck at idle, airspeed bleeding, flight path vector DOWN...so WTF, why would you NOT eject if you want to live! It may be that the pilot/owner Dan may himself have completely lost his SA because he was trying to get the engine to accelerate and save his baby. My opinion is that neither the PIC in the front seat or the second pilot in the back could possibly know exactly what was happening OR what to do about it in those few seconds. It's not like they were at altitude and has time to troubleshoot. What the GIB did know was that he was about to die...and he decided it wasn't his time. Good decision.

[@CWLemoine]

What if the jet was still flyable?

[@bronco5334]

The backseater LITERALLY SAID in the interview that the very last communications between the pilot and GIB were the GIB asking "what's in front?", the PIC saying "apartments, I'm coming left", then the GIB deciding to eject without getting the PIC's approval. It's pretty clear that, whether they would have survived a later ejection or not, the GIB *KNEW* that the aircraft was pointed at an apartment, and that the PIC was maneuvering away from them at the time the GIB decided to pull the handle. Whether the aircraft could have made it to the airfield, or whether the crew would have survived a later ejection, is kind of immaterial. That, to me, is gross negligence by law, and utter cowardice by any ethical standard.