# DRDC paper: Deploy seat pack/survival kit when ejecting in forest



## The Bread Guy (23 Nov 2010)

_Mods:  if this fits better elsewhere, please feel free to move it._

This abstract from a just-out DRDC paper:


> Current air force training dictates that ejectees from high-performance aircraft mitigate landing injury hazards by letting the survival equipment in their seat packs fall to the end of an 8 metre lanyard while they are still descending under parachute. The exception is when they will land in trees and are told to retain the seat pack for the protection it offers against tree branches. Proposed automated seat pack deployment systems would protect aircrew from the landing injuries frequently seen when circumstances prevent them from deploying it themselves, though this would also deny the option to retain the seat pack for tree landings. This study reviews aeromedical literature and analyses Canadian Forces ejection tree landing injuries. It finds that, contrary to current doctrine, tree landing injury profiles with retained seat packs are not better and may be worse than those with deployed seat packs. Automated seat pack deployment is recommended.



... and the longer exec summary:


> Introduction: Current air force training dictates that ejectees from high-performance aircraft mitigate landing injury hazards by letting the survival equipment in their seat packs fall to the end of an 8 metre lanyard while they are still descending under parachute. The exception is when they will land in trees and are told to retain the seat pack for the protection it offers against tree branches. Proposed automated seat pack deployment systems would protect aircrew from the landing injuries frequently seen when circumstances prevent them from deploying it manually, though this would also deny the option to retain the seat pack for tree landings. On the recommendation of the Board of Inquiry into the crash of CT155215, the special projects officer for aviation life support equipment at 1 Canadian Air Division Headquarters requested a study to review Canadian Forces (CF) ejection experience in order to validate the retention of seat packs for tree landings and to inform decisions on the adoption of automated seat pack deployment systems.
> 
> Results: A review of aeromedical literature showed that ground landing most often results in minor or no injuries. Minor injuries are most often to the lower extremities, though they are sometimes major and can involve the spine. Seat pack retention is a widely recognised risk factor for major leg and spinal injuries, though its role in aggravating or mitigating tree landing injury is not addressed in the literature. British aeromedical staff found injury data inconclusive on whether seat packs were better retained or deployed when landing in trees, though most British fleets are capable of automated seat pack deployment.
> 
> ...



.zip file of paper attached.


----------



## rnkelly (23 Nov 2010)

This DRDC paper just tells the pilots stats.  Doesn't change anything.

It's funny that CT155215 was used  to decide this, the hawk seatpack doesn't deploy automatically and the individual was trying to mannually deploy it while landing causing his most severe injuries.  Due to the low altitude ejection he didn't have much time.

DRDC=Capt Obvious


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Jan 2011)

Perhaps DRDC could rent Buster, from Mythbusters to get real data?  ;D


----------

