In the situation you describe, I suspect a pilot will have the same problem, i.e. not enough time to identify and fix a problem with the main chute, regardless of whether the solution is cutting risers or deploying a reserve chute.
I was on the supply and inspection end of ejection seat components for parts of my career. The ejection seat system can have a dozen or more explosive components. Everything from rocket motors to shaped charges to gas generators (think airbags as a type of gas generator). The aircraft maintainer keeps a log of all the explosive components (CADs and PADs) in an aircraft. Most of these have shelf and service life expiration dates that get tracked. At replacement time, the old and new unit serial numbers and dates are updated for each aircraft. The individual manufacturing lots get tracked and function tested during the component’s lifecycle. We’re shooting for 100% reliability but you can’t foresee all possibilities and aircraft damage.
Note that for cost purposes and appearance, car airbags don’t get replaced as the vehicle ages :eek:.
Youtube has dozens of ejection seat test videos that show the entire sequence. Certain parts of the system will cinch up the pilot’s safety harness, hold his/her feet in position, cut the canopy and fittings from the aircraft to the pilot and seat, charge batteries in the seat, pressurize a whopper piston to eject the seat, initiate rocket motors and attitude control jets, and sequence parachute deployment. The seat has sensors that determine the position of the aircraft relative to the ground (assuming everything isn’t disintegrating and LSL has detailed).
That was the idea, but unfortunately cabin and capsule-type ejection systems as used on the F-111 and B-1A do not have a good success record. A cabin or capsule ejection system requires many different pyrotechnics, separators, sequencers, aero-stabilization under various conditions, air bags, etc. Yet it’s used when the surrounding vehicle is torquing, disintegrating, maybe even exploding. All those complex separation systems would have to work in that environment – but they often don’t. There is a saying in engineering: “complexity breeds failure”.
The one time it was used on a B-1A, one crew was killed and the other severely injured because of malfunctions in the complex system. Similarly many crews were killed when using the F-111 cabin escape system:
http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Aircraft_by_Type/F_111/F-111.htm
F-111 cabin ejection development: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gyIhOGyGA8
The capsule-ejection system used on the XB-70 killed at least one crew: http://www.ejectionsite.com/naa/xb70test.jpg
By contrast, progressive advancements in ejection seat technology has resulted in seats which work more reliably over a wide range of conditions. For this reason the F-111 an B-1 systems were changed to seat-type ejection systems.
Thunderbirds ejection: http://praxis.co.id/media/image/14784868071581feb17ac2de
Agree about all the shortcomings of capsules.
We’re still in the tough spot that bare seats expose each crewmember to massive wind blast and flail injuries at high speed.
The B-58 solved that with a mini capsule like a pillbug shell that closed over the individual crewmember. Stanley B-58 Encapsulated Seat: The Ejection Site. Not so good for a fighter because the structure, even when fully opened, massively restricts side and rear visibility. Not such a concern in a bomber with a more buried cockpit anyhow.
Something involving at least some similar tech is probably the next major advance.