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

421–430 of 440 posts

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

#421

Post by a_mechanic »

estearum wrote: post #275
a_mechanic wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For counterbalance to this point, it is very common for water to get into hydraulic fluid. Moisture from air condenses in containers when they transition from hot to cold environments.

Username checks out! That’s interesting. Can this effect pretty easily achieve the reported 30% water content?

It would depend on how many months the barrel was subjected to thermal cycling. A more likely cause would be a technician leaving the cap off the barrel during a rain storm (noted in the report).

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

#422

Post by nradov »

RankingMember wrote: post #418
nradov wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remote control for what? That doesn't really help in the case of a serious mechanical failure. There are probably several more generations of crewed tactical aircraft left. Autonomous flight control software is decades away from being able to handle complex missions and remote piloting can only work when you have secure, reliable, high-bandwidth communication links. The concept of operations for the next few generati…

> Remote control for what? That doesn't really help in the case of a serious mechanical failure. In my theoretical, the pilot would safely eject as he did here (or possibly before the touch-and-gos) and the remote control would come into play to try and belly land the plane without it simply becoming a fireball immediately after ejection.

Your theoretical is stupid. The mishap aircraft was uncontrollable.

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

#423

Post by foxyv »

mikrotikker wrote: post #414
foxyv wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very "Don't do this" kind of situation but you can force the computer to switch to a different law by pulling circuit breakers for certain instruments. Typically though it will happen automatically when the computer detects sensor failures. Changing the law of the aircraft is something you REALLY do not want to do. It's a "The Airplane broke real bad, do that pilot thing!" situation. Especially on a fighter…

Ah is this what the "cobra button" is effectively?

Yeah, in the Su-27 Flanker that is exactly what it is. You change the flight controls to direct control so you can do things that will put the airplane in an unsafe condition. I think it's a switch in the Flanker as well.

In jets like the F-22 Raptor it will just "cobra" with stick input. They will dump the wing controls automatically to unload the wings, and use thrust vectoring to reach absurd angles of attack. The F-18 Hornet uses a paddle switch which will increase the G-limiter and allow spin recovery.

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

#424

Post by RankingMember »

nradov wrote: post #422
RankingMember wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Remote control for what? That doesn't really help in the case of a serious mechanical failure. In my theoretical, the pilot would safely eject as he did here (or possibly before the touch-and-gos) and the remote control would come into play to try and belly land the plane without it simply becoming a fireball immediately after ejection.

Your theoretical is stupid. The mishap aircraft was uncontrollable.

It clearly was controllable up until the last touch-and-go. The point is they could've attempted an actual landing with the pilot clear of the aircraft prior to it becoming completely uncontrollable had their been a remote option. It's about pilot safety.

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

#425

Post by datameta »

emchammer wrote: post #336
datameta wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll be honest I couldn't bring myself to read the whole thing, but it leads me to hoping we never entrust vibe-coders to work on mission-critical systems...

Therac-25 is also on the front page right now. I like to reread the reports about that every few years, especially the human effects. Maybe we need formally-verified methods to be more accessible.

Therac-25 is the poster child for this kind of failure mode. Formal verification and behavioral equivalences would be invaluable, I think, but I can't pretend I understand much about the underlying math of the former.

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

#426

Post by M95D »

If this is triggered by a bit of bad weather, what would happen in a actual war conditions? Would they expect the planes to be better maintained then?

Oh, just scrap it and build some more A-10s. And take some lessons in reliability, redundant systems, good engineering.

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

#427

Post by HPsquared »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #379
borlox wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you're chosing to egress because the plane stops to know where it is or where it isn't, would you want it to decide how fast to eject? Chances are that the ejection system won't get reliable data to decide on in these situations.

I believe the only relevant factor is airspeed.

Airspeed, altitude, vertical speed.

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

#428

Post by nradov »

RankingMember wrote: post #424
nradov wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your theoretical is stupid. The mishap aircraft was uncontrollable.

It clearly was controllable up until the last touch-and-go. The point is they could've attempted an actual landing with the pilot clear of the aircraft prior to it becoming completely uncontrollable had their been a remote option. It's about pilot safety.

That's silly. You're talking about spending years and billions of dollars developing a capability that might be used once every few years. It's not going to do anything to enhance pilot safety.

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

#429

Post by drdo »

keepamovin wrote: post #415
delfinom wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised they don't design the seats such that they pop out two bars under your armpit so that you transfer some of the forces into your shoulder and collar bone instead of just the spine. Same way car seat belts horribly injure people if they let it rest on their stomachs instead of on their hips.

Visceral grok: there’s a reason supporting yourself on crutches versus standing sucks; your spine is meant to bear load. I guess a taser like electro stimulation targeted to get the right muscles to tense up to ease a bit of pressure on the joints might help But i have no idea

Doesn't the pilot press the button to do it himself? It's not like it's a surprise, he can tense the muscles beforehand.

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

#430

Post by hilux »

ahartmetz wrote: post #401
mvdtnz wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Gives strong "3.6 roentgen, not great, not terrible" vibes! What?

In the Chernobyl TV series, they think they see a high but (short term) tolerable amount of radiation. It was actually just the upper limit of the measurement hardware and the real value was much higher.

Like my continuous glucose monitor.
Post reply on HN