Safety issues with the F-35’s ejection seat should begin to be overcome by the end of this year, Lockheed Martin’s program manager says.
Lightweight pilots have been barred from flying the F-35 since ground testing in August 2015 revealed a risk of fatal ejection injury.
Unacceptable risk of neck injury to pilots weighing less than 136 lb. when ejecting at lower airspeeds emerged during sled testing by seat supplier Martin-Baker.
“We have a good idea of what caused the issue and the path forward,” says Jeff Babione, executive vice president and general manager.
There are three primary solutions, he says. The first is to add a “heavy/light” switch to the seat that will delay deployment of the main parachute for lightweight pilots. “We plan to begin modifying seats by the end of the year,” Babione says.
The second fix is to reduce the weight of the Gen 3 helmet-mounted display, developed byRockwell Collins ESA Vision Systems. The third is to add a fabric mesh between the parachute risers to capture the pilot’s head during ejection.
The new “Gen 3 Light” helmet provides identical capability, Babione says, but weighs 4.6 lb., down from 5.1 lb., reducing neck loads during ejection. “We have removed material throughout the shell, under the helmet electronics and changed the fastener materials.”
The visor design has also been changed to reduce weight. Where the original helmet has both day and night visors that pull down, the Gen 3 Light has separate visors that the pilot has to change, and which are stowed in the cockpit when not in use.
Ejection testing is underway, and the three fixes should be ready by the end of this year or early 2017, he says. The US16E ejection seat in the F-35 is designed to accommodate pilots weighing from 103 lb. to 245 lb.

Well done!
Now on to correcting missile overheating inside the internal weapon bay. Allowing the bay doors to open even at high speed to fire missiles. Correcting lag on the visor's display. Correcting the glitch that shuts down the AESA radar in flight. Increasing its (currently very slow) top speed until it's fast enough to intercept enemy bombers. Making it a plane with enough fuel that it actually could loiter a reasonable amount of time over a combat scene. Letting it have enough firepower to match the A-10 it is supposed to replace. Testing its code resilience against enemy (Chinese?) hacking. Making it able to reliably have success when dogfighting a 1980 F-16D carrying external fuel tanks. Inerting its fuel tanks even when they are full. While we're on fuel tanks, allowing it to turn at its contractual 7G when fuel tanks are full (currently 3G). Developing the Block 3F version of the software. Making it capable of striking its targets without “required intervention by the test and control team to overcome system deficiencies and ensure a successful event" (dixit DOT&E). All this while bringing the cost down to manageable levels for the armed forces.
Yep, almost there.