- As requested - this post was substantially rewritten and references added in mid June 2022
Until recently the YAK38-B (maybe also YAK 36, and 141) were the only aircraft equipped with auto-eject.
The newer F35-B Lightning variant has auto-eject capability due to the existence of loss of vertical lift situations that can develop faster than a pilot may be able to manage. It seems likely that the logic which makes this desirable in the VTOL Yak 38 also applies to the F-35B. It will be interesting to see if the F35 designers have overcome the YAk's undesired auto-eject issues.
The British-made Martin Baker US16E ejector seat that equips the F-35 includes 3 airbags that inflate in a two-stage process to protect the head and neck of the pilot, wearing the heavy helmet packed with technology. The F-35B variant has a feature that will also eject the pilot automatically if it detects that the vertical-lift fan has failed (most serious during vertical landing but the fan is also in use during rolling take off). Loss of downward thrust from the fan would cause the aircraft to pitch down sharply, faster than the pilot could react to pull the ejection handle manually.
From: https://www.navylookout.com/salva
Various mentions of F-35B auto-eject capability. None of these are definitive but all are consistent:
https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/643788-uk-f-35b-lost-3.html
A unique feature of the US16E is the trio of airbags that inflate in a two-stage process to protect the head and neck of the F-35 pilot, wearing the large helmet-mounted display, upon ejection. Also of note, the F-35B version of the Lightning II has an auto-eject mode. This is designed to function in the specific instance where the STOVL aircraft is in the hover, and the shaft-driven lift fan fails.
In that case, the jet is likely to pitch down sharply, quicker than the pilot can react to fire the seat manually. It will therefore fire automatically while the possibility of escape remains.
Synopsis of Lecture to RAeS Loughborough Branch - Martin-Baker: the JSF story so far 08 Mar 2011 Steve Roberts, JSG IPT Lead, Martin-Baker Aircraft Company Ltd
“...The ejection seat was required to be common to all three aircraft variants. It was also required to have superior ejection performance to all previous seats, meet new neck injury criteria and provide an auto-ejection capability when used in the F-35B (STOVL) aircraft. The last requirement demanded early firing of the ejection seat in the event of an aircraft malfunction in a manner similar to that used in the Russian YAK 36, 38 and 141 aircraft....
...Neck protection is provided by means of a “Catcher’s Mitt” inflatable device which supports both sides of the pilot’s helmet and also provides support to the top and /back of the helmet. This device is also held in a container located behind the pilot’s head. The device is vented before the parachute is deployed. The device has been tested & proved to inflate under simulated 50,000 ft altitude conditions....
...The F-35-B (STOVL) aircraft has additional failure modes associated with Lift Fan, Vane Box, Lift Fan Drive Shaft, Roll Duct and Turbine failures. A typical pilot takes two seconds to react to the ejection klaxon or one second if warned in advance of a likely failure. In the case of a STOVL related failure, ejection must take place within 0.6 seconds. Hence it was necessary to install smart failure sensors on the aircraft to automatically fire the ejection circuit mounted in the back of the seat....”
Material below re SU27 is retained only to allow prior comments to make sense. The Su27 does NOT have autoeject capability.
________________________________________
INTEREST ONLY MATERIAL BELOW HERE:
Added: This answer was based on advice I received that the SU27 had auto-ejection capability.
In a comment xxx states that the SU27 does not have auto-eject capability.
I have not yet obtained supporting factual references for either point of view. I will update this answer when I know more.
If the SU27 does NOT have auto eject capability then the crew members were extremely brave, regardless of what responsibility they did or did not have for the crash. I viewed a video of the crash and did a frame by frame examination from 1st contact with the ground by a wing until ejection.
The video speed was 25 frames per second.
The video was never "super clear" and became increasingly less so as the crash progressed (apparently due to the videographer attempting to not die).
From the time the wing 1st touched ground 4 frames (0.16S) elapsed until certain canopy motion was observable. It may have been starting to move for 1 to 2 frames before this.
The canopy was well clear by frame 8 (0.32 seconds post contact) and one crew member ejected at frame 11 (0.44 s post contact). The aircraft was moving out of frame but it appeared essentially certain that a prior ejection had not occurred so the 2nd ejection probably occurred some time after frame 11 (after 0.44s post contact).
While ejection initiation would have occurred at some time before frame 4 when canopy motion was first noticeable it would almost certainly have been a very short period prior, so it is very likely that the aircraft wing had touched the ground at or before ejection initiation.
That's brave.
Also stupid, if you want to live.
But very brave.
_______ End of addition. ______________________________________
Yes.
This is a frame grab from a video about a Ukrainian airshow disaster when an SU27 crashed into the crowd with many fatalities. Both crew members ejected essentially "on impact" and I'm told that the ejections were automatically triggered. Both survived.
The ejection shown here obviously had to be preceded by a trigger, canopy eject, fire, ... sequence which I'd expect to last at least some "tenths of a second", so the actual decision point is uncertain.
