Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

F-35 pilot held 50-minute airborne conference call with engineers before crash

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 440 posts

Re: F-35 pilot held 50-minute airborne conference call with engineers before crash

#121

Post by HPsquared »

codyb wrote: post #99
airstrike wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there was ever a risk of the plane crashing with the pilot still in the cockpit, despite the fact that the headline sort of leads people to that conclusion. The pilot could eject at any time. Still dangerous, but more of a debugging session to avoid other similar costly in the future than a Hollywood-like "if we don't solve this now the pilot dies"

Doesn't ejecting from a plane potentially break bones? I think it's pretty intense. Good on the pilot for doing the debug session

I wonder if the ejection seat has different levels of acceleration depending on the situation.

Re: F-35 pilot held 50-minute airborne conference call with engineers before crash

#122

Post by chasil »

airstrike wrote: post #77
yellow_lead wrote: post #43

> Five engineers participated in the call, including a senior software engineer, a flight safety engineer and three specialists in landing gear systems, the report said. I can't imagine the stress of being on this call as an engineer. It's like a production outage but the consequences are life and death. Of course, the pilot probably felt more stressed.

I don't think there was ever a risk of the plane crashing with the pilot still in the cockpit, despite the fact that the headline sort of leads people to that conclusion. The pilot could eject at any time. Still dangerous, but more of a debugging session to avoid other similar costly in the future than a Hollywood-like "if we don't solve this now the pilot dies"

I imagine that ejecting at certain phases of these two attempts would not be survivable.

"The pilot then tried two “touch and go” landings, where the plane briefly lands, to try to straighten out the jammed nose gear, the report said."

Re: F-35 pilot held 50-minute airborne conference call with engineers before crash

#123

Post by MBCook »

jWhick wrote: post #112

I'm wondering why these days, when my washing machine has an internet connection, they can't take over control of a plane remotely. I guess it could be considered a security vulnerability, however i'm quite sure it could be done securely. Like let the pilot eject and you try to land a plane with remote control

The article said the plane had become uncontrollable and that’s why the pilot had to eject.

So even if remote control was possible I’m not sure it would’ve done any good.

Of course I also don’t know why the plane would be allowed to think that it’s in ground mode when it’s 100s of feet or more in the air. Or why the hydraulic fluid was 1/3 water.

Re: F-35 pilot held 50-minute airborne conference call with engineers before crash

#124

Post by agos »

seethishat wrote: post #73
freefaler wrote: post #14

So as a pilot you can't override the software to stop it from "thinking that the plane is on the ground" mode? Something similar happened recently with A320 when it didn't want to land on an airfield during emergency unless it was flown in a special mode. But F-35 doesn't have that?

"On the ground" = WoW sensors. WoW sensors have been around a long time (see link). And, humans probably should not have any say about that. If humans could override WoW, then the landing gear could be deployed or retracted when it should not and cause a lot of damage due to human error. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACARS

this makes sense but why is the decision based only on the state of the landing gear? Is it dumb to expect altitude and speed to be considered?

Re: F-35 pilot held 50-minute airborne conference call with engineers before crash

#125

Post by HPsquared »

crote wrote: post #97
5f3cfa1a wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ejecting from an airplane is no joke: 18g of force leaves 20-30% with spinal fractures, and ejection seats have an 8% mortality rate[1] It seems to me that continuing flight with inoperative/damaged landing gear while you discuss alternatives with engineers is the safest option. Burn fuel, make a plan, let people on the ground mobilize to help, and eject when you've tried what you can and it truly becomes the safest…

It makes you wonder if it would be possible for ejection seats to have a safer bailout mode. Sure, the "compress your spine" mode is definitely appropriate during a wartime situation where someone has shot your wings off, but is it really required when a mechanical failure leaves you unable to land yet in a more-or-less stable flight at a reasonably low speed? Perhaps a 6g ejection might be more appropriate in those…

Maybe they want it to be a bit injurious so people only do it as a last resort.

Re: F-35 pilot held 50-minute airborne conference call with engineers before crash

#126

Post by [deleted] »

jWhick wrote: post #112

I'm wondering why these days, when my washing machine has an internet connection, they can't take over control of a plane remotely. I guess it could be considered a security vulnerability, however i'm quite sure it could be done securely. Like let the pilot eject and you try to land a plane with remote control

[deleted]

Re: F-35 pilot held 50-minute airborne conference call with engineers before crash

#127

Post by svieira »

> But those attempts failed to recenter the nose wheel and resulted in both the left and right main landing gears freezing up and not being able to extend fully to attempt an actual landing.

> At that point, the F-35’s sensors indicated it was on the ground and the jet’s computer systems transitioned to “automated ground-operation mode,” the report said.

And there wasn't a way to override that? I get that "manual mode" may not be a thing for a SaaS product that isn't critical, but there not being an immediate way to turn off the "drive mode" is quite surprising.

Re: F-35 pilot held 50-minute airborne conference call with engineers before crash

#128

Post by quest88 »

reactordev wrote: post #103
ChicagoBoy11 wrote: post #92

Very different scenario, but flying my puddle jumper one of the first times after getting my license, once I took off from an airport in Connecticut and was about to cross a large body of water, my exhaust temperatures spiked really, really high, essentially indicating the engine was seconds from melting. But it didn't. So of course I felt it was a sensor issue (especially since it sounded/felt great), but luckily wi…

This kind of stuff happens all the time. Especially if you ignore a controller instruction. They'll have a number for you. But really there's a ton of small, unmanned airfields (some in peoples backyards!) that have a number you can call to operate things like the runway papi lights. Call to order a burger to go. Or just call to talk to Fred, the owner, to see how his day was. As long as you can safely operate the ai…

[flagged]

Re: F-35 pilot held 50-minute airborne conference call with engineers before crash

#129

Post by chasil »

rfoo wrote: post #74
el_benhameen wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That initial “oh shit” feeling must have been so much worse than for us regular boring engineers. Google’s not gonna save you on that one.

For a whim I read this as "us regular boeing engineers" and it was really funny.

Except they were from Lockheed Martin.
Post reply on HN