Mig23 Ejection Part 2 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Love your videos, thank you very much.

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

Thanks. Great interview.

Thanks, Scott!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

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

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

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

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

I'd like to see Dan Gryder interview him next

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sangat keren nih bos 😍😍😍

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

He needs to stop talking. Just stop.

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

😎

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

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

wouldn't.

Time to put “Columbo” on the case…..

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

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

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

When in doubt punch out!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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